Carnarvon and Denbigh Herald and North and South Wales Independent

To the Electors of Anglesey. GENTLEMEN, T do not recollect to have seen in any political contest J such unceasing attempts as those of the Tory party who gtport Mr. Meyrick, to enlist on their side all the bad passions odogmatiral animosity under the pretence of religious feeling, ad to which it is no more allied than sin is to truth. Not con- tit with appealing to you on the exploded puerilities" of the and the throne being in danger," the real source of alarm liwever being in their own blinded obstinacy, which would iduce them to sacrifice both rather than concede one jot to jstice j but you are told that Mr. Meyrick's cause is that of fligion, whilst Mr. Stanley's is that of irreligion; and that in jipporting the latter you are opening upon the nation the flood- ptes of popery, infidelity, atheism, &c. &c. &c. Now, I think lefore I have concluded I shall have convinced you that the Pntrary of all this is the fact; that the Tories as a body, how- (Ver religious they may profess to be at elections, have not the lightest care for either religion or its attributes for themselves, tat only for those establishments and means of power and re- Cnue to which its name but not its spirit is attached, and yhich are rather expensive matters to yon and the rest of the jation; and that the really religions party in the state is that P support which Mr. Stanley is ambitious to get into Parlia- ment, because it is the party which has proved itself stimulated ty Christian principles in extending civil and-religious liberty, bodily and mentally, to all classes and conditions of men, thus >eins religion from the reproach of hfjnF,tifrgeoitipg■ intole- iain, cusiaving; though they nave been ob- structed at every step by that Toryism which now falsely at. sumes itself to be conservative of religion and liberty, with what sort of title we shall speedily see. 1 am not one of those who ever wish to bring matters of be- lief into a civil contest. I do not see what I have to do with any man's faith so long as he does not thrust it offensively upon me, or set at nought those common usages and obser- vances of society, which out of a regard to personal freedom and good order are wisely enjoined by the social compact. If he observes Christian ordinances and institutions, I leave the judgment of his heart and motives to God. It is sufficient for me, if the civil duties of the citizen are well, independently, and firmly fulfilled, so as best to advance and preserve human liberty, and cement those reciprocal enjoyments and benefits which flow from it. It is not my province to judge a man's faith but only his acts. It is by this test I shall defend the Reformers and take leave to judge the Tories, who are fond of Reformers and take leave to judge the Tories, who are fond of dealing in unmeasured accusations against the Reformers, to excite your prejudices. I shall confine myself to facts; and proceed only upon facts. The imputation upon us, is-that we are leagued with "O'Connell, Papists, Atheists, Deists, Socinians, &c. to pull down the Church." I believe with Archdeacon Paley, that "there never was any man yet, who attacked a flourishing establishment, but does so with a halter round his neck!" I am sure that no one ever attacked the vices and abuses of any Church whether Protestant or Catholic, and attempted to re- form them, but was assailed with the most unmeasured denun- ciations of those who profitted by them. This was the fate of Wickliffe and the Lollards-of Luther, Calvin, and the early continental Reformers-of Knox and the Scotch Reformers; and of Wesley, Whitfield, Charles, and others of our day. They have all been denounced as banding with Infidels against the Church; but all pursued successfully their honest career, first separating from the Church on account of its abuses, and esta- blishing what they conceived were more pure systems; and continued ceaselessly to denounce those abuses which appeared to them to obstruct Christian utility. Now I deny in toto on the part of the Reformers of the United Kingdom what is charged against them. I know of no combination of parties to pull down the Church. It is true there is a large and inflaential body opposed to a Church Esta- blishment in connection with the State-in fact to a law church and who are in political hostility to Its political posi- tion, and d. ny not only the right of any sect to have sus- tenance from the State, but impugn the utility of so doing, bo- cause as they allege it impaits to it aUllo source of abuses and corruptions. But these men come not within the sweeping condemnation of the Tories. Perhaps no body of men are more austerely Christian, or strive more to keep within the tenets of primitive Christianity. They are the dcoeendauu in faith and discipline of those Puritans who preserved religious liberty through the times of the Stuarts, when it was difficult to tell, whether the Established Chur«h under a Roman Catholic or Protestant King was most intolerant; and when certainly as destructive blows were aimed at both civil and religious liberty as during any period of British history. The body— now known as the Independents, or the Dissenters—have at all times abided by the fundamental principles of Protestantism —"the right of private judgment, and that the script area are the rule of faith,"—two dogmas which but fpr them would two pnricl'pf^s^iiSs^fe&l'^tdkSSSst1,1^iiicir mjsmrijxntL \3irar52 as a political engine has been avowed and open; because in that state connection they have always predicted an undue dominance which was likely to nubvert those principles and, as far as our experience of High Churchmen goes, their antici- pations on this head have been fully justified. But these are not the men to pull down religion, nor to enter into the councils of men unworthy of its name. They have always been the ad- vocates of what they conceived to be the purest system of Christianity, and the purest means of inculcating it; hence has arisen their jealousy of establishments, of formularies of faith, enjoined rituals, and of privileged orders. For what they conceived to be the primitive Church their forerunners have suffered martyrdom and persecution; even from the aeformed Protestant Church. They are the most unlikely men in the world to form connections with such characters as the High Church bigots would class them with. The Infidel, the Roman Catholic, the Sceptic, the Lapsarian, the Soonian, and the Papists within or without the Church, have no jileruer-no more uncompromising opponents: the cause of Protestantism no more inflexible advocates and defenders. As a Churchman I do them this justice. They are the opponents of our establish- ment on principle but I can never regard as the enemies of religion, or as leagued with those enemies, men who adhere so inflexibly to its essential doc'.rines, and have done so much for those principles of civii liberty with which those essential doctrines are so closely identified. But the cry of "the Church in danger" is the old cry of Wolf." If it is in danger, it is fropi the enemy within not the opponent without. It is not the Church which is in dan- ger, but the corruptions the Church; coruptions which de- form and defile it. From whom does the cry come ? From men calling themselves Conservatives. What have been their acts? They have made and yet would make the Church a reproach IUstead of an ornamenting, spreading and protecting branch of Christianity; they resist every attempt to appropriate the pow- ers and uses to their legitimate purposes: and instead of main- taining it as the protector and the advancer of Christian liberty, they assert for it an exclusive dominance, which they would uphold at the expence of the liberties and rights of others. I must not be understood as including the conscientious Protes- tant Churchmen, nor the great body of the working clerev hut in contradistinction to them, those political Churchmen whose ends are political, and who only regard it as a means of accom- plishing political powers. For from those men comes the cry; and only from, them, and such weak tools as they can cajole or purchase. Now what are the grounds of their charge, that Reformers wish to pull down the Church? It is known to you that Mr. Stanley and most of the leading reformers of the day are Churchmen. They are conscientiously so, and with few excep- tions are its advocates in connection wi'h the State. I must confess that I do not think the connection of the Church with it the State has at all added to its utility aa a Christian institution. But what overt acts of hostility have the Reformers ever shown to the Church in its christian character? They have attempted to carry out the principles upon which its polity and connection with the state are based, in practical civil legislation. Surely, this is no just cause of reproach to them. The principle of Protestantism is that of Christian liberty: it is liberty of thought, liber y of judgment, and liberty to enjoy these without let and hindrance. It is the libertv which the Church took tQ itself of displacing the Church of Rome; and it is a liberty that in matters of faith and conscience it cannot deprive others of. This is the essence of Protestan;ism; and I defy it to be controverted. It is the attempt to carry out these principles which has brought upon the Reformers the obloquy of "pulling down the Church." Is it now to be charged upon them, that because they have opened the door of civil rights and religious liberty to the Dissenter first, and the Catholic afterwards, that they are not Christians, and that they would unite with men not Christians 1Lgainst a Christian institution? Yet the charge is made by men, who have availed themselves of their exertions to enjoy those rights and liberties, of which other- wise they were deprived. Are any men more strenuous for the advancement of Christianity ? Do any make greater volvntary sacrifices for it. Yet because they canuot consent that their Church shall so pervert the Protestant principle as to be a charge upon the liberty, property, and conscience of others disagreeing with it as a form of Christianiiy, you are to de- nounce them as not Christians, and as men making common cause with the enemies of your faith, against that faith? And this is to be esteemed Protestant toleration,-that toleration of which so much is unduly boasted, and for the supposed eft- joyment of which you are to make those men pay who avail themselves of it! Now look at the characters and ac's of the Reformers and see whether in the slightest degree they will bear out the charge made against them ? These are the men you must recollect, who have been most forward in the work of Christian and moral education. They have been great contributors and sup- porters of Bible Societies; Sunday Schools; Missionaries for extending Christianity to the Heathen; Tract and other So- cieties for proselyting at home they have at all times with- stood the errors of the Church of Rome, and the poison of the infidel and the sceptic in these they have laboured when the High Church party kejSl aloof from every means of instructing and enlightening the people at home and the heathen abroad, and when the Church was as latitudinarian as the most rank sceptic could desire when Bishops and Dignitaries denounced the Bible and other Societies and Sunday Schools, and only acknowledged their utility when forced. In the outset they took their stand on the Bible as the rule of faith, and the rule of action; from that they deduced those lessons of Chri-tian liberty which instructed them in the right of private judgment, without which there would have been no Protestant faith in England. It is from this fount that toleratiou flows; not that spurious toleration which merely permits as a favour, but which concedes as a right. Cherishing thi* sacred principle, what is so natural but that without probing into any man's conscience, the fullest extent of civil rights should be granted him ? what so just, as that we should carry out that political axiom the foundation of all constitutional liberty, that no man should be deprived of the rights of citiienship on account of his opinionsl" Do you think the men who emancipated the negro slave did it capriciously and to pull down liberty ? Yet this was charged by the slave owners. Do you think that they extended civil rights to contract them, or religious liberty to pull down religion ? Yet this is what the High Church party would have you now believe. Do you think these things were conceded through an abject fear, by the men who sus- tained principles rendered sacred not only by their intrinsic merits, but by the blood of martyrs? Was it not rather from the sternest principle of Christian justice? And can you think that these are the men to unite with the ungodly for any pur- pose ? A re they the men likely to do evil that good may come ? Does not that imputatiou rather apply to the men who revile them and calumniate them, and who by the implication of pulling down the Church," would have you believe they are the enewies of the Church of Christ? I ask yon seriously what right either you or any other body of men have to deprive any class of men of civil rights or reli. gi us liberty, because they differ with you in matters of opinion ? I have misread the constitution of my country if it contains any principle of exclusion, though the practice in some instances may warrant the supposition. Yet the Tories would make the Church the Shibboleth of exclusion. There is so much to ad- mire even in the Church Establishment that I should be as sorry to see it abolished, as I am to see its utility impaired by abuses which it is our duty to remedy. I for one never can look at her undue dominance except as her chief cause of weakness. If left to stand upon her own merits I am convinced she WOJld he bptter sustained. Break down that wall of ex- duKrivn, and the distrust in which she is held wi'l disappear; and she will be fenced around instead with the affections of the people, and the respect and confidence of those who whilst they dissent from her discipline will feel an interest in her welfare as a Christian bulwark. But so long as her dominance in matters of faith, in liberty, in rights is upheld, so long will she be in danger. These are eXLresencies neither Christian nor Protestant; they partake of the incubus of that State Church of Rome she cisptactd and unless they are removed, I fear they will he hfr downfall. Here is the real vulnerable point- yet here is the only part of the Church the interested alarmists care to defend. But it iajsiid, "we give power to the Catholic; that we graut every thing he wants." The same is also said of the Dissenters. Of the two bodies, I believe the High Church party most fear the Dissenter: one of their organs, Lord Wharncliffe, at least does so, for he would rather make Ca- tholicism the established religion of Ireland than there should be no state church establishment at all. If it was, we should soon see the High Church Clergy within the Church of Rome. Where the carcase is there will the vultures be." They are not Protestant Churchmen, but Political Churchmen. We do not give power to the Catholic in the sense alleged; but we give him liberty-we give him that which is his right. We do tbe same to every citizen. It is the principle of the Protestant religion that we should award this justice. If we do not we are not Protestants. I ask what has Protestantism to fear from the Catholic ? Nothing. Its principles are as eternal as Christianity. Admit that the Catholic is as intolerant as he is described—that in these enlightened days he is as bigot-ed and persecuting as the darkest ages, I regret it, though I do not think it is the case. 1 cannot believe that the meliorating effects of reason and of truth, have only fonid an arid waste in his bosom. But I feur not him so much as to continue to him a rule of injustice. I respect my own faith and prize its benignant influence too much to imitate his errors. That Ca- tholics once persecuted is no reason why they should now. Protestant Churchmen did the same-they persecuted the Nonconformists—hunted them from dale to glen, from ravine to mountain; driving them to worship God in spirit and in truth by stealth, subject to the felons' brand for the act. It was not the spirit of Christianity in either case; but the jealousy of a dominant establishment, seeking to maintain more than Christian power; to become absolute over the minds, con- scienceF and lives of men. I lament the errors of Popery, but I will not imitate them. It is my purpose to rebut them not only by Christian truth and reason, but by example; and in carrying out to the utmost, constitutional principles, shew the benefits that flow from them and hy this best of all lessons in political ethics, vindicate Christian liberty. Did it never strike you that those persons who wish to reform national institutions may intend to do so without destroying them; and that those who resist reformation, are often the worst enemies to the real utility of those institutions, and that they peril their existence in the desire to conserve the abuse ? Satan wished to usurp heaven and no doubt, Tory-like, denounced all who opposed his designs as infidels, sceptics, and spoliators —himself the real infidel, sceptic, and spoliator. It is thus that the real Reformers have always been treated. But when the blow comes from whence no evil shaft should have been hurled, it is doubly felt. Who would have expected that the labourers in the cause of civil and religious liberty when Dis- senters were admitted to their eiuil rinhu—when the "1;"0 ttavewas MMMlpMec—wMn National Education was advo- cated, would ever have held counsel with the enemy of these principle-. What fra'err.ity of feeling can there be between John Elias and them ? In what great work of his early minis- try have they ever made common cause with him ? Where were they when his great powers were exerted for the unconditi- onal emancipation of the slave? Where, when he advocated the unlimited distribution of the Bible ? Where, when he cease- lessly laboured to send the Gospel to the heathen abroad ? Where, when he missionarised through the country to convert the heathen at home? Did he then find the infidels, the sceptics, the latemdinarians in the High Church ranks, or among those men whom he now denounces as associating with Atheists, Papists, Socinians, &c.? In what respect have the fruits of Reform been contradictory to the principles of Protes- tantism ? Are Reformers not the same advocates for personal and mental liber y and the same tried adherents of vital Chris- tianity ? Is it a n*ligious feeling that prompts this man to sit in judgment on his more righteous brethren ? Or is it the desire of the world's praiqe-that he may be applauded of men ? If he knows what Christian liberty is, what Protestant- ism is, and what are the moving rules of action with those who understand Christian principles, he will know the first is general not exclusive, the second the antagonist principle to exclusion, and that the third is to treat all men as brethren, and to withhold liberty from no man because he does not un- stand its value, but to teach him by its uses and application to estimate it above all price. You have a great duty to fulfil-to apply these principles to actual circumstances. If you are told the Catholic is the enemy of liberty, remind the British people, that to the Catholic Cardinal Langton and the Catholic Barons, are we indebted for that Magna Charta, which prevented the British realms being handed oyer by ihe reigning monarch as a feof of Rome. If you are told that the Dissenters are enemies of the Church, reply that it is to the political ascendency of that Church by which they are unconstitutionally coerced; and that to them we owe much of the civil and religious liberty we enjoy. Much as these men are professed to be despised, they are the men who have fought for constitutional rights. To them is owing that reforms in Church and State have been conceded. If they were the reckless men they are represented, would they have used the powers by which they effiected those reformations, to sustain constitutional and Christian liberty. Am I to be told that the Catholic is the enemy of liberty ? My answer is, that since Catholics were readmitted into their place in Parlia- ments, not one vote have either the Catholic Nobility or Com- moners given against civil or religious liberty, or against reform hut, on the contrary, their votes have always been Christian and against the views and corruptions that Toryism had inflicted in Church and State. But I envy not the claims to toleration of those who would class even Catholics with Infidels, Atheists, and Sceptics. Whatever may be the errors of Popery, it at least recognises the essential doctrines of Christianity. It was permitted to be their depository through the dark ages; and if under its polity they became obscured by error, they were preserved. To class Catholics with the enemies of all religion, with those who laugh at that scheme of redemption the Catholic acknowledges, who deride those oaths the religious regard for which were an insuperable bar to the Catholic possessing civil rights when excluded by law, who look upon that revelation which in common with the Protestants is the eternal hope of the Catholic as a cunningly devised fable, and all moral obiigation not so much a duty as an expedient, is to me the most outrageous of all intolerance not the prompt- ness of a Christian spirit, not the emanation of the gospels of truth, not the precepts of Jesus; but an unpardonable, I had almost said a criminal 11 plucking the beam out of our brother's eye, regardless of that which is in our own." But you are called, on the strength of this vain pretence, to range yourselves in the ranks of those who have never moved one step in the cause of religious liberty, of civil liberty, to ex- tend religion, or to advance education, against those who have worked unceasingly for these ends. Is it for purposes of reli- gion or toleration ? I answer, No John Elias knows that it is to sustain an undue dominance-not a religious dominance but the political dominance of a section of a faction as much at variance with the conscientious Churchman as the Dis- senter, and which has brought the Church into more disrepute and thrown more discredit on religion, than all the assaults of all the infidels that this or any other age ever saw. It is said, the Church is in dangnr." Is the Bible in danger ? Is Christianity in danger? Do these, which have not only out- lived the genius of Bolingbroke, the casuistry of Gibbon, the wit of Voltaire, and the hypercritical coarseness of Paine, but the indifference of professing Churchmen, and of powerful, flourishing, demi-politico-religious establishments, both in Ca- tholic and Protestant times, require that you should, on the promptings of men who never cared for either, act on anti- Christian principles to maintain them ? Depend upon it if these evr-r suffer, it will be from the religious public acting politically C°-1 '°i_ lctates setting at nought all their precepts —ju ging the mind, the lives, the conscience, the thoughts, md the >e ief of men, not by their acts as men and as Christians, but by some fanciful standard adjusted on falsehood and not on truth. J l aJc to^e iu<lged by their associations, none ought to be ess la e o your suspicions than the Reformers of the British Pf_'on,' an, Part'cularly of Anglesey. All their efforts have t- f ,r,e °,rin ,an<* Purify the Christian and political institu- f -v 6 an. » to ""estore them to their primitive elements i ™PecVve Purposes. But what shall be said of those Into 'vfhirh*1! i??-' What shall be said of those associations tolerant r ° f « ^as latety entered as the apostle of an in- his life denounced _^th "h'mt SiWhlCh he connected TndTf whS he ?. a nhierts- from the Church for anti-Christian inp hnHioa n 'he rniuisters of that and otherNonconform- ferenr« »<> lnsp,lje<cohblers, and rank hypocrites"* in re- r ,r Prr,se'.vt>ne labours, anj efforts to obtain Church rtlorni. When you tee hitn thv advoca'-c of ilu- tn an 1 the defender of the political establishments, so long, so openly and so unceasingly denounced by him damaging them more by hia assaults than any other man when you see him now entering rm into their counsels, what must you think of the change that has come over him ? But when you see him the colleague in this very election, of men who representToryism-wbo kaveavailed themselves of, and are under the direction of the paid agents for North Wales of the Carlton Ciub-which is the nucleus of Ultra- Toryism; when you see him in defiance of his foratei professions and the ruling passion of his whole life, de- serting the ranks of Christian liberty, for Anti-Christian intolerance; fighting against Protestants, liberal Churchmen, and Reformers of all grades, and turning the weapons of false- hood against the armour of truth; can you, will you, take the man's estimate of those with whom you have always associated, with whom he so long associated in the days of bis better reason, and whose acts have been those of Christian principle, and who are in nothing changed? Whether he is the creature of delusion, the victim of a coercing necessity, or the slave of passion I know not. I regret he should thus prostitute his great powers and gifts that he should thus abuse his ten tslents," I regret it, for the sake of that Christianity of which he was the able defender, and that pure religion of which he was the almost inspired advocate. In vindication of the Reformers I have thonght it my duty to say this much. They are not the men whether Churchmen, Catholics, or Dissenters to enter into such associations as am charged upon them. Their objects are higher and their mo- tives too pure to need them. On the contrary they could gain no strength even to a bad cause from such auxiliaries: to a good "one they would only bring orer encumberiag weakness. If any class be open to these imputations it is the Tory party, who seek to mould Christianity and all its institutions to sus- tain the political dominion of themselves; and who with "toleration" continually in their mouths, only willingly tolerate- that which they use as auxiliary to their views. Yours, &c. A PROTESTANT CHURCHMAN. See the last Charge of the Bishop of Bangor; a sermon by his Chaplain, entitled, "TheSigns of the Times," and the Bangor Chronicle' passwta, the last, the organ and parasite of John Elias.

Anglesey County Keettngr. AT a MEETING of the INHABITANTS of the COUNTY of ANGLESEY, aonvmed bv the High Sheriff.and held at the County Hall, in the town of Beaumaris, on Tuesday, the 17th day of January, 1837, for the purpose of taking into consideration the provisions of the Bill passed during the late Session of Parliament, in as much as they re- gard the future approbation of Tithes now held by the Bishop of Bangor. (In the absence of the High Sheriff,) RICHARD TRYGARN GRIFFITH, Esq., in the Chair- It WúS re,fol"ed, 1st. That the Petition proposed by Charles Henry Evans, Esq., be adopted. 2nd. That the Member for the County be requested to pre- sent the same to the House of Commons. 3rd. That a Petition, the echo of that to the House of Com- mons, be presented to his Majesty, aud that the Lord Lieute- nant of the County be requested to present the same. 4th. That Copies of the Petition, and of these Resolutions, be inserted in the Carnarvon and Denbigh Herald,' and the North Wales Chronicle.' The Chairman having left the chair. It was resolved that the thanks of the meeting he given to him for his able and impartial conduct in the chair. 0. OWEN, Uuder-Sbertff. To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland^ in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the Inhabitants of the County of Anglesey, agreed upon in a County Meeting legally convened, Humbly Sheweth, That it is not without much reluctance that your Petitioners venture to express dissatisfaction with any measure which pro- fesses to lemove imperfections in the practical efficiency of the Established Church, or to increase and extend its nseftiluess. But they feel compelled by an imperative sense of public duty, to call the attention of your Honourable House to one part of the arrangements proposed by his Majesty's Ecclesiastical' Commissioners in which the just rights and the religious inte- rests of your petitioners, and of the inhabitants of NorthJWales- generally, seem to have been overlooked or disregarded. Itt C<>'InU\i-'<>n<1:\> fo\11.eG in their first rrpow that rme advantage which will result from the union of the two sees of St. Asaph and Bangor will be the opportunity afforded of a p. plying a part of the impropriations, wbich constitute nearly the whole property of the bishopricks, to the augmentation of poor and populous vicarages in the united dioceses." This explicit declaration of the Commissionei-p had led your petitioners confidently to believe that in the scheme which would be proposed for the union of the two sees, the basis of the plan for appropriating the surplus episcopal revenue would be the attainment of this promised advantage and accordingly that the augmentation of poor benefices in Wales would be the first and chief object in that arrangement. But your petitioners have now learned with equal surprise and regret that this mode of applying the surpins fund forms no part of the intended scheme of the Commissioners, and that the Act which gives effect to their recommendations does not empower them to adopt it. Your petitioners are informed and believe that upon the first opportunity the Commissioners will apply the surplus revenues of the united sees to the endowment or augmentation of bishop- rics in England. Your petitioners therefore hasten to lay before your Honourable House their respectful hut most urgent remonstrance against a measure fraught, as they conceive "this to be, with great hardship and i junice to the inhabitants of North Wales, and great injury to the Established Church. The see of Bangor differs from many others in thi< respect that its revenues arise almost entirely from tithes, and these are not let on lease, but are annually collected and paid to the Bishop. It has always been considered both by the Bishop and by the public a matter greatly to be regretted—namely that his revenue should arise from such a source, and that many of the parishes whose tithes are paid to him should thereby be de- prived of a competent endowment for a resident incumbent. This evil will be perpetuated by the proposed application of these tithes, and the opportunity will be lost of redressing one of the greatest evils and abuses, under which the Church is Wales has for many years been labouring. In the disposal of the tithes, consequent upon the union of the sees, the inhabitants of the parishes where they accrue have, as we conceive, the first claim to have a resident incum- bent restored to them, and a suitable provision made for his support; and whatever surplus may remain after that obje-1 shall have been attained ought to be applied in the manner originally suggested by the Commissioners to the augmentation- of poor benefices in the united dioceses. Your petitioners feel convinced that if the Commrsskmere had been fully aware of this peculiarity of the North Wales dioceses, and of the exigencies of the Church in Wales, they would not have departed from their nrst suggestion, nor sanc- tioned a measure so repugnant to justice and so injurious to the inhabitants of the Principality: bat as these circumstances have escaped their observation, your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will take such steps as shall pre- vent the appropriation of the surplus revenues of the united sees of Saint Asaph and Bangor to any other purposes than a provision for resident incumbents in the respective district* where they accrue, and the augmentation of poor benefices within the dioceses, whereby a great improvement would be at once accomplished, and much facility afforded to the appli- cation of further measures which may he devised for extending the usefulness of the parochial clergy, and securing their resi- dence within their several parishes. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.

CLWYD AND X.IVEB.POOX. Stoam Packet Company's Superior Vessel, "j. ST. BKirsreO, OF EIGHTY HORSE POWER, plies regularly between RHYL AND LIVERPOOL, And sails from RHYL every MONDAY, WEDNESDAY, and FRIDAY, about three quarters of an hour before high water, and from GEORGE'S PIER-HEAD, LIVERPOOL, on TV ESDA YS, THURSDAYS, and SATURDAYS, about four hours before high water. As the St. Mungo plies upon this station only, the utmost reliance may be placed upon her regularity she performs the passage in about two hours and three quarters, and runs on up to RHYDDLAN twice during each round of Spring Tides. Sh. carries a Steward and Stewardess, and refreshments may be had on board. Cars and inland carriers await the arrival of this Packet, to convey passengers and goods to Rhyddlan, St. Asaph, Denbigh. Ruthin, Abergele, Conway, &c. &c. For Freight or Passage, apply to the Company's Agent*, EDWARD ROBERTS, No. 2, Drury-tane, Liverpool HUGH JONES, Mostyn Anns, Rhyl. Goods from Liverpool are taken in at George's Dock Pier Head, on Mondays and Fridays, to po by the Paeket on Tues- days and Saturdays. Goods from Wales taken in and carried on on Mondays and Fridays, and no goods can be taken at any other time. All goods must be accompanied_ with a Shipping Note, containing particulars of their description, weight, c., or they cannot be sent forward. AN goods are at the rjs ol the Owners, if not taken away when landed and a J"e'K are due on delivery. Returned empty packages are at tbe nsk of the partipc they belom: to. received and laudcu at llr-jiixke. .¡