Monmouthshire Merlin

TUESDAY. At six o'clock this evening large crowds began to assemble in the hall entrance, and long before the hour appointed for the commencement, the immense body of persons had forced open the large room doors by their terrible pressure. The room war instantaneously filled, and the speakers with their friepds forced their way with the greatest difficulty to the platform. Tht orchestra was filled with ladies, besides which large numbers obtained accommodation in the room. At seven o'clock precisely, the Mayor took the chair, and after exhorting the assembly to exhibit no partial manifestation or improper expression of feeling, he introduced the Rev. Mr. Stephen, who was greeted with loud cheers. Mr. Stephen said Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen,—I have to request your kind and candid attention to some remarks in reply to Ibe speech we heard last night from my neighbour. the Rev. James Francis. I wish to make one preliminary re mark. This discussion is brought about, not by the dissenters, but by Mr. Francis himself. Some weeks ago, we held pub. lic meeting in this room. It was convened for au avowed and clearly defined purpose. The bill giving notice of it described it as a meeting to take into consideration the propriety of peti tioning parliament against the educational clauses of Sir James Graham's bill. Mr Francis thought proper to be piesent at that meeting. When we had finished our business, he requested permission to speak, which the Mayor accorded him. In the course of his address, he charged me personally with misre presenting the provisions of the bill. As soon as he closed his remarks, I at once challenged him to prove his charge. I understood him to retract it, because I got up and said 1 was satisfied. Mr. Francis says, however, he did not intend retracting. I believe him—of course. I am bound to believe fiim. He knows best what he intended doing. My position, then, was this—I stood publicly charged with misrepresenta- tion. I believed the charge waa unfounded, and could not be substantiated. I then publicly and respectfully challenged the rev. gentleman to prove it, either through the press, or at a public meeting. He has preferred the latter, and'we are now here, at his instance, and by his selection. M, Francis is the aggressor, and I the defendant—of myself, in the first instance, and—in consequence of Mr Francis's speech last evening—of the great principles of religious freedom.— Another remark I wish to make, in reference to the charac- ter of the speech of last evening. Mr Francis's proper business —his self-assumed taak-was to prove that I had misrepre- sented Sir James Graham's bill. Our mutual friends, in theii arrangements on our behalf, had bound us down to this point, confining at to my apeech in the MULlN. as the ba- sis of this discussion. But I appeal to you confidently, when I say, that Mr Francis travelled most egregiously out of the record. Again and again did he introduee other and quite irrelevant topics. I only interrupted him once, for I was willing for him to gratify hlmself-I did not wish to preveoi his saying what he had intended, and I was still less unwilling to prevent his enunciating the principles which divide For these realonl-tboagb I had a peifect light, according to the arrangements made by onr friends, and according to the history and merits of the CMC, to object to the introduction of at leasl half his matter-l did not stand on my right, but let Mr Francis have it his own way. W hat I have now to do, divides itself into two parta. I have first to reply to Mr Francis's reo marks attempting to prove that I misrepresented the provision* of the bill and [ ahall then have to make some reference to the other topics which he dove-tailed into and grafted on (host- remarks. Then, first, as to the constitution of the school com- mittee proposed by this act—I beg pardon, bill-Act of Par- liament it is not yet, and I hope never will be. I had said thai this committee must be a Church of England body. To prove this, I referred to its members. There is the incumbent of the parish, with a second or casting vote—there are the two church wardens—who I described as churchmen, of course. To this, Mr Francis said No! 'no!" I replied, as to the effect of the appointment on the character of the schools, and added, that I was aware that dissenters might be appointed churchwardens, and might be fined for not serving. In all this, Mr F. says I misrepresented. And how did be prove it last nighty Why by saying that he never knew of clergymen appointing dissenters churchwardens. Well, is this refuting me—is this making good the charge 1 I said the churchwaideos would be church- men. Mr Francis, to prove that I misreprelented,says he never knew of any but churchmen appointed 1 Novel mode of refu- tation I by adducing further evidence ill support of that which is to be refuted. Admirable method of disproof! by fumishing additional testimony in favour of the position denied It is a pity that I cannot receive this aid, because it is not founded on tact. It is too good, and 1 must request Mr Francis to take it back I have known dissenters cburcbwlrdens-I have known dissenting families kept in apprehension for years, by threats on the part of clergymen that some of their members should be appointed to this office. And has Mr Francis never heard the name and fate of David Jones, of Llanon ? He was church- warden of the parish, and an Unitarian dissenter. The other churchwarden at the time was Reet Goring Thomas, Esq., a gentleman of high standing, of great pioperty, and a magistrate of the county of Carmarthen. i he parish had refused a raie, and there were no elements provided for the sacrament. The curate proceeded against the ehurchwarden-not against both, but one-and not against the rush, but the poor man. (Cheers.) David Jones was cited to the Ecclesiastical Court of Carmar- then. He, knowing little of such matters, paid no attention to it, and was then proceeded against for contempt of court. For this crime, he was committed to the county gaol. In some time and on the ground of some informality, he was liberated by order of Lord Denman. His prosecutors were not satisfied— 'hey commenced proceedings anew—i was cited again. This so disturbed the poor man, that he left his home, and corn. menced his journey towards Swansea feeling indisposed on the way, he turned into a house on the road side, and in a very short time died, and thus indeed escaped the relentless fury of his clerical persecutor (Loud cheers and hisses.) I submit, that I have proved my positions, that dissenters may be church- wardens, but that they are so too infrequently to affect the cha- racter of the achool committees. (Cheers.) Mr FrancIs a at. tempt at refutation has only given me opportunity to make my averment more indisputably clear, for which he deserves, and haa my best thanka. I referred to the power given to the ma- gistrates to appoint four of the seven trustees, as objectionable, and calculated to make this proposed committee a Church of England body. I founded thia argument on the palpable fact that the immense majority of the magistrates are churchmen, and of this majority a largo proportion To thia v Mr Francis gives the vary amusing answer that the commission of the peace is open to the dissenters. This reminds one of a common saying, frequently used by those who love all things as they are, that the courts of law are open in this country to Hit poor as well as the rich. Mr. Sheridan, on one occasion, wit- tilv exposed the fallacy of this as a practical remark, by sayin" Yes, and so is the London Tavern—but the poor must have money before they can go in as the rich do." (Great applause ) Equally fallacious is Mr Francis's observation. True, dissen tere are eligible 10 the commission of the peace, but the appoint, ment is in the Crown, exercised by the Secretary of S'ae. Mr Francis said the late Whig Government had appointed du. seniers magistrates. But he did not say that Sir J. Graham had put one dissenter in the commission, tie knew better; he knew the extreme improbability of his doing so at any time to come. (Cheers.) I have now proved the corretnesl of my representation in this particular, and Mr Francis's attempt to prove the contrary, has utterly failed. We come now to the clause which, we apprehend, will have a most injurious opera. tlon on Sunday schools. Here I was somewhat surprised by the charge of unmanlmess, because I insinuated rather thaa stated in detail an objection to this clause. A single fact will clear me of this. We had arranged before the meeting to leave that part of the question to Mr. Pairy, so that when I came, I merely read it, and in passing, said, Sunday school teachers, W a' *^u0L i° th'4, d'd »ot insinuate anvthiog against this part of the bill, from any desire to avoid a full discussion of it, not surely from any fear-but simply in consequence of the previous arrangement just mentioned. Aa to my misrepresen- tation of this clause, the charge is an absurdity. I made no representation at all of it; I merely read it word for word out ot the bill. (Loud applause.) Mr Francis told us be could find nothing in this clause that could injure Sunday schools. Wen, it is very strange. We don't wish to misunderstand this measure. We endeavour to understand it; we have a deep interest in the question. All the non conformists ot this try—including Wesleyan Methodists and Roman Catholics— uodersland it as having an ominous, and in many cases that may beexpec.ed to arise, an annihilating, effect on Sunday schools. (Loud applause.) I remember in the report of the. debate on Lord Sidmouth's bill, that some peer aaid the dis- senters were not opposed to the bill-to which LOld Erskine replied, The Dissenters themselves say they are—and I will v ieVBiu w 88 ,0 t'ie'r own sootiments, before the noble lord.' Now, Mr Francis must permit us to act on our sentiments, aaA* while, to our minds, this bill is calculated to injure these schools, we must on this account, oppose its passing into law. Sunday schools are too dear to us—they have cost us too much labour, care, and anxiety, and they have been too useful amongst us, for us to submit tamely to their being injured and there is no power we possess, and can honestly use, that we will not reso- IUlely employ to protect and save them. (Great cheering.)-— We come now to the preference which I alleged this bill gives to the Catholics over and beyond oiher nonconformists. This, Mr Francis says, I introduced ad captandum. Indeed I did not, but in sober seriousness, and will prove to you that my version is correct. A child in a factory district, before he can be employed in a factory, must have a certificate proviog his attendance at a National School. a school under this bill, « Catholic school, or a British and Foreign School. Now, this would be equal if the dissenters had no schools but the British and Foreign Schools. But this is not the fact: not half the children of dissenters, certainly, not more than half theii chil- dren go to these schools. Now all the children of diisenteis so situated are in a worse condition than the children of Roman Catholics. A certificate of attendance at a Catholic school will constitute eligibility for employment, while a certificate of attendance at a dissenting school, unless it be a British and toreign School, will not constitute that eligibility. Is this not placing the children of dissenters to that extent below the chil dren of Roman Catholics? Did I in this respect misrepresent the bill? I did not, and I appeal to the meeting—to its fair and candid opinion—when I thus formally and deliberately make the denial. (Loud cheers and hisses.) Mr Francis de rnurred to my describing the bit! as unconstitutional. I believt- there is no difficulty in satisfying you that I did so on surt- grounds and for sufficient reasons. First of all, it is 0' e of Ih. principies of the constitution of this country, that no man I taxed but by bimself or his iepresemaiive. That IS formlI) provided for in Magna Chirta and the Bill of Rights. Thi. bill gives power to the schoul to tax us to any amount it niav please, without our consent. I dare to say that is unconstitu- tional. Another of the principles of the euosiitution is our taxes are appropriated and expended by responsible persons ) he civil list in voted by the people's representatives—ever> item of the national expenditure is brought annually before Parliament in the estimates—and the ministers are responsible to Parliament for every penny they spend. This bill power to the clergyman and ihe churchwardens, with four other trustees—those appointed by the magistrates, not by the plopl" and FOR LIrE-to expend thesehool rate—and they are respon. sible io nobody. There is nothing in this bill approa hing tn responsibility, excepting only the poor schoolmaster, whom the Bishop may dismiss summarily, and he is responsible to nil power on earth for doing so. I dare again to say-this is un constitutional. (Cheers.) In the third place, it has a still worse feature of unconstitutionality—itrt creates civil disquali- fication for religious opinions. The appointment of the school master must be sanctioned by the Bishop he is to teach nothing of religion but under the direction of the clerical trustee. Do you suppose thai a cleigyman will take, and the bishop appoint, a dissenter or a Roman Catholic to be master in any of thesr school 1 ()f course not: 'he consequence is, that every did senter is by his dissent disqualified for the profession of a school master^ (Cries of 'shame,' and cheers.) In his case, if lie e a Protestant, this is re-enaciing the Test and Corporation Acts if a Catholtc, it is recalling into existence and operation 'he persecuting statutes abolished by the Catholic Relief Bill. I say this is unconstitutional, and I defy Ur Francis to provt the contrary. (Cheers.) I have now uone over the points of accusation brought oy Mr Frmnet* against myself. I aobmn thai I have proved the correctness of the account I gave of II James Graham's bill: I submit that is all the more apparent on account of what 1 have now advanced. I did not misre- present the clause constitu ing the school committee. I did not misrepresent the clause which we regard as injurious to Suod..) schools, because I did not represent it at all I merely read it out of the bill. I did not misrepresent the clause which I allege gives the Catholic advantages over the Protestant dissenter. 1 did not misrepresentlbe bill when I said it was unconstitutional and despotic. I have now proved it to be so. I now most res- pectfully, but most confidently appeal to you against Mr Fran cis's charge, and say I am NOT GUILTY. (Burstsof applause.) I must now beg your attention to a few of the many subjects which Mr Francis has dragged into this discussion. The church, Mr Francis tells us, has done more for the education of the people than all the other sects. Well, perhaps so it may lie more difficult to prove than my reverend opponent supposes. If it were so, it is of no use to the argument between us it tells nothing as to the merits of Sir James Graham's bill. J know this, however, that the Church of England has had enough of money to educate the entire people-aye, the Church of England has misappropriated enough of money to educate more than havetaen educated. Some of you know of the commis- ion which Mr. Brougham obtained 10 enquire into the state of charities in this kingdom. You will also know the fright II diffused amongst those who profited by the misappropriation of charities, the unsparing abuse poured on Mr. Brougham, and ihe tenacity with which these abuses were defended hy the then Government. I bold in my hand, and will read to you, a few of the facts which that commission brought to light. I have them in Mr Brougham's letter to Sir Samuel Romilly, in which there is a syllabus of those facts :— POCKLXNGTON SCHOOL—Wilberforce was educated there. LaIT nV?Ue* Pa,rons' 'he fellows of St. John's, Cam- inin » '«.» taught, and the school-room converted house before *n P r outcry raised by calliog the head of a, and it was m ..a tnen,ary committee, was inconceivable: oenin? to hnM» by the reverend person himself hap- tion beinir addrpQ °° 8 very sitmple and very civil ques- HUNTINGDON "Schow'n ^ery terms.] The land is let accommoZe i™maPdPe,'fhd; borough. # «».°2 ^flnnn nor annum A, « tenements being above 18000 per annum. At a more recent date, the valuable mine- rals were leased at a mere tnfie r £ 3 14,) Vnr or 900 years, to one of the trusieet on\ 0f « e%^nMru« tees now enjoys the lease. A decided majority of .ho others are clergymen, holding livings under him, Ld him in his management of the concern. pruning Mr. Stephen And have they not vested interests" in these abuses? Poor innocents! in inese READING, BERKS.—Certain estates apnear in k. l > as late as 1811, for nearly the same rent that thi>uVf k61! Charles the Second's reign. fe,ched 10 CROYDON.—A free school specially appointed to be kept for all the inhabitants. None wiihin the memory of man has been taught. The master receives his emoluments, teaching another school for his own profit, and though the inhabitants have es' tablished a seminary on the new plan to give education at their own expense to the poor of the place, in the very school room devised for their gratuitous instruction. BKKKHAMPSTEAD.—A school richly endowed. The Lord Chancellor said he could not interfere, although he saw the master teaching only one boy, and the usher living in Hamp. shire. N.B. The worst abuses were found in Specially visited' charities, which were exempted by the Castlerngh Act of 1818 trom the inspection of the Education Committee. Whoever," says Lord Kenyou, will examine 'he state of the grammar schools in different parts of this kingdom, will lee to what a lamentable condition most of them are reduced. If all persons had equally done their duty, we shnuld no; find, as is now tbe case, empty walls without scholars, and everything neglected but the receipt of the salaries and emoluments." It is absolutely necessary," says the orthodox Lord Eldon that it should be perfectly understood, that charity estates all over the kingdom, are dealt with in a manner most grOllly im. provident, amounting to a direct breach of trust." (t he reading of the above statements was interrupted bv frequent cries of shame, cheers, hisses, &c.) J MI. Stephen then proceeded If we had had all this monev to spend, I will venture to say the country would be in a verv different stale as to education and if Mr Francis were correct in saying the church has educated more than all the sects be aides, there is nothing in it to boast of: she has had and has spent enough of money to do But I repeat it: this is not so easIly proved. fhe history of education in this country, I begtosay respectfully, does no credit to the Church of Eng- land. (Loud applause and hisses.) Jose h Was t £ e founder of the British and Foreign system, took up the aue of education with great zeal. Was he supported by ihe church ? No: every opposition the clergy could give him, thev gave, and his success was principally owing to the zeal and fidelity with which George III. and the Duke of Kent aided and counte nanced him, in spite of the church. The British and Foreign School Society was established then the church comes forward and establishes a rival society, the National School Society: when they saw that education must go on-that others would educate the people, they came to the work themselves. The National Society was formed as a rival and an opponent to the British and Foreign, formed previously, and on liberal princi- pies. I say this is no credit to the Church of England.— (Cheers and hisses:) As to Mr Francis's statement, I merely reply he is not capable of proving it: if he were, it would ren- der him no service in this discussion. It was alleged again in one of the rev. gentleman's trips out of the record, that the Church of England had exerted a more salutary influence on he people than all the other sects and under this remark, we certainly bad some very strange matter. Monmouthshire is a dissenting county, and he comes here to test the character of, the influence exerted by the dissenters. Will Mr Francis con- sent to a fair comparison and induction ? Will ho admit that Wales is a dissenting country, and that the dissenting sects of d Wales are, with an utterly inconsiderable exception, evaneeli- rr °*I| at>d hold lhe doctrines of th? Thir v-nine Articles ? 1 h< then, point out aav district in the (an.?, iff stnnl >i dune'' stoos.andequa) population, where di<»ent does not where the church i8 predominant, and will he allege 'hat tha fc district is equal to Wales, as to the morals and religion of h. people 1 I believe he will not: I am quite prepared to abidt by the consequences of such a comparison. But the Chartism ( were dissenters—the men who came down here some three ye»" IIgO, tbey were rlissenters-so we were lold lasl nliot, In on' I, sense, though I don't think my opponent will enjoy the men tioning of it, this may be true. The greater pari of those met were dissenters, I daresay, in as far as they tlid not go to church —and I will giv« one reason for it, and if theie were no other, this would suffice, there are few or fSo fihufches for them to g" < to. (Tremendous cheering.) Take the iron district ffom Pon typool to Hirwain and how many chunhes have been raiser) » *t'hin that densely.populated tract of country within the last 't thirty years. Certainly not more than ten, and as certainlv, o there are not more than double the number of schools within '« the same compass provided by the Church of England. ( Hear, < hear.) How many dissenting chapels have been erected in the i same district during the same time. 1 should say not less than o •wo hundied, with their Sunday schools, and a large number of n day schools. (Great applause.) Now, I think a churchman should talk of these hills in a Very subdued tone indeed. Had it not been for the dissenters, the whole district would have long ago been a Pandemonium. That a small portion of the people did, under temporary excitement, do a very foolish and criminal thing, is no reason that such conduct should be re- D girded as a correct index and exponent of the feelings and prnclples of the inhabitants generally. If Mr Francis main- tam IhIS, I will prove what he will not much "ke. I WIll prove that the people who believed poor Thom, of Truro, to be the Messiah, and who braved death itself with bim and for him, within the sound of the Canterbmy church bells, were atruth- fijl specimen of the religion and intelligence of the inhabitants f of the Archepiscopal city, and of the men of Kent generally (Loud and continued cheering.) Indeed the entire allusion to the Chartists gave me no small astonishment. I think it most unwise and inflammatory, calculated not to allay, but to excite animosity and bitterness. But I must proceed. The Church dt England, we were told last night, has been veiy muih de. a voted to religious freedom. Mr Francis gave us a curious proof I of this. He told us that before Locke wrote his great work, t Jeremy Taylor, a clergymen of the Church of England, wrote F his Liberty of Prophesying—a work advocating religious free- I dom. I know that work—it does advocate toleration, though < it is immeasurably inferior to Locke's work, inasmuch as it does j not deny the greai principles of equal liberty,but advocates tole- f ranee on the score of expediency and Christian charity. I will r yield to no maa in my respect for Jereniy Taylor's writings. 1 have looked with pleasure on the lovely spot in Caermarthep shire, where he found a peaceful asytum.and where he composed t and preached the seven beautiful sermons—still called Golden J Grove. I cannot, at the same time, admit his having written i this book as proof of the Church of England's love for religious liberty. It only proves the kind and lovely spirit of the indi- J vidual, and. indeed, the feeling which that excites, is much di minished by his subsequent history. At the Restoration, he was made Bishop of Down and Conoor, and he was a member of Chailes the Second's Privy Council, duiing the passing of his f persecuting ed-i-ts against the Nonconformists. To prove Mr ( Francis's »tait=irieni, he must show that the church has ever r made any public demonstration in favour of religious liberty to c others. Le him point out some act or acts of the church. I a have been ihinkinu of the canons. He will abide by them. F rhey have lode,.d, the force of Idw, not having received r the sanction "f Hie civil power. If ihey had, I should not have ihe liberty o' speech I now exercise. (Cheers.) But Mr Francis, as a clfrg\(n<»n, WIll allow they are authentic exposi- { tions of ihe spirit ot th« Established Hierarchy. Are I hey 'olerant and liberal ? Oil the contrary—they are in their fun- J.,meolal principlt-s. 4u.| in their entire construction, intensely I intolerant ami perst-cuunu. ( Hisses and cheers.) In opposi- i ion to Mr Francis, I muntain, that we are under no obliga- tion to the Church of England for our religious libeity. (Loud ) cheers and hiding.) lint !)Wt! our cjVI| freedom principally to this same incoipora-ion—at least, such WHS thedoctiine of 'jst evening. I o pr»vr th-s, my reverend opponent said that if there were any value to ibe cause of liberty in the revolu- tion of 1688-we owed 11 to the church. Now we can read the his tot y of that revolution as well as Mi Francis. We na. r turally feel a dee in'.erest in il. It was an important epoch in I the march of opinion- I put ihis question 10 Mr Francis— Does fie believe that if James the Second had been a high churih- I nun, and had sought to oppress the Catholics and the Protest- otot dissenters, instead of bein a Catholic, and seeking 10 reo store Papacy, that the heads of the church would hAve sub milted io that revolution, or lhat by them the Prince of Orange would have been sent for at all. It was their zeal for their own freedom that induced tem to act the part they did. A proot ..f ihis is found in the fact, that as fat as William had savr-d the Church of England from its dangers, he found it most diffi cull to get the Toleration Act passed, and it was effected b\ he energy of his indomitable will; and the remainder of his life was disquieted by constant endeavours, on the part of those who acted in the spirit of the Establishment, to infringe upon the provisions of that act and by the further (act, that unde Queen Ann, this spirit increased so ihat at the time of his •leaih, massacres were in actual preparation to abridge the liberties of Nonconformists. We owe, as I read the history 01 the country, the Church of England about as much for om civil liberty, as for oui religious, and lhat is very liule, indeed \Jr Francis will also have it that are not the descendants O ■he Puritans. Well-will he and his friends assume that ho noured appellation ? He says they persecuted-l keow lid, antf ihey did it because they held lhe p.opneiy of connect In ihe Ofiturch with she Stale, no man can do thai wirln.u holding also, as an inevitable corrollarv 'he propriety, nay, ih- necessity, of coercing opinion and punishing hoesy.' My'op ,»nnent seemed much disturbed at im objecting to education III ihe Stdte-I mean, religious education at all. I sull maintain, and am prepared 10 ddend, the objection If the Siaie have right to educate teligiously, it ha a right io determine ihe cha racier of the education. And how is the Slate toeseictse ■ hi- Is it lo teach Protestant episcopacy in England, Papal episcopacy in Ireland, and Presbyierianism in Scotland. Ate these three systems right 1 Is Protestant episcopacy right 7 and is Papal episcopacy right atsot and then, is presbyierianisn- again right ? What a multiform andProt»«o thing is this ? HoVl many rights are Ihele" We see no escape but by confining the duties of civil government to its own province. Government ha> no right to interfere with teligious churches—ii ha. not lhe powe. 10 do so legitimately and beneficially and hence we deduce as consequences the position I am defending. I close my reference to this subject, by reading the two following resolutions, re cently come to by the Wesleyan Methodic Association at Leeds, In whi h our views are happily expiessed "That this meeting considers it no part of the province ot civil government to provide for either the secular or the religious education of ihe penple; and that any attempt to do so is 00' only an infringement ot the civil rights of the community bu is also alien to ihe spirit, contrary to the principles, and iniuriou- to the prosperity of genume religion. That it is no less the duty than the inalienable right of pa- rents, in whatever situations of hfe, to educate their own child ren; that to them it peculiarly belongs to choose by whom in what manner, and on what principles, their children are to' be inSlructed; and that any imeiference by government between parent and chi:d in these matters, whether by cnmpelling th. attendance of children at particular schools, under particular masters, and under clerical or other controul, or by the imposi- tion of taxes, or by the infliction of penalties, is an outrage on the rights of man, and a gross violation of the rights of Chris- tianity." And does not all this comport much with the sentiments uttered by the Right Honourable Sir Robert Peel-the very elo- quently expressed sentiments which I read to you at our first meeting 1 You remember how he cautions Lord John Hussell "against all interference with peifect liberty of education?" how he says, that he does not think the dissenters will be content with compulsory assessments for education?"—and "that it is better, in a country whete dissent so much pre- vails, to leave education to the voluntary exertion of the pat ties themselves ?" So we think. Mr Francis told ua he did not know much of Sir James Graham a bill, until he came to the former meeting,—still he got up, at the close of the meeting, and defended it! It would have really done him no harm, if up to this discussion he had studied it a little more. (Laughter.) I must return for a moment to the Bri- tish and Foreign School Society. Mr Francis committed a great mistake, when he said that the smallness of the portion of the parliamentary grant claimed by this society, proved the fewness of its schools. It proves no such thing, as I shall show by reference to the principle of the distribution. My attention was fir,1 called to it by the person who was prin- cipally engaged in bringing the grant forward, and getting parliament to vote it. Lo-d Brougham, in a lengthened con- versation with which he honoured me in his own house some years ago. told how this was settled, and poinied out the consequence. The government (LordGrey's) wished to divide this grant equally between the two societies, and they decided upon helping ih >-e who help themselves. In this manner, they would give but pari of the money necessary to build a school hou-e—the parlies engaged to hnd the other. For instaoce, they would say-If you fiod Ii moielY, we will vole the other. Now, tie church people being generally the richer party, they managed in many districts to furnish the requisite sum, when the dissen-ers could not. The consequence was, they claimed their portion of the grant, and the money WSo voted to help the powerful, while the weak were left unaided because they were weak. This principle of distribution has operated most injuriously in preventing the erection of BII. tivh and Foreign Schools, and goes far to stultify the argu ment based by Mr Francis on the small pioportion of the grant voted to schools in connexion with the liberal society. Mr Francis, moreover, on the same ground, attempted to prove the fewness of dissenting schools, or rather, the school* in which tbe children of dissenters are taught. The fewness of British and Foreign Schools does not prove the fewness of schools where our children are taught; for certainty not half the dissenting children that are taught, are taught in these schools. The rev. gentleman went out of the record to refer 110 a remark made by a gentleman at our first meeting—tha• was, that he had a right, if it pleased him, to educate his child an atheist. I told Mr Francis at the moment, that il was no remark of mine; but this I did simply to 8pprizt I him that he was sfttaying, and not because I cared for con necting it with my name. It may be used as a bugbear— but it is a very innocent one, and it does not frighten ne at all. There are some distinctions which we must keep in mind, or we can know nothing. This is one—that we Itav. rights as it regards each other and civil society, which Wt do not possess towards God. We have 00 right before him 11 do anything inconsistent with His revealed will, but I hav. a right 10 do many things for which society cannot punisl me, though they be wrong in the divine sight, 11 is so il; the case now before us. Mr Fiancis has boldly avowed hi intention, and theieby claimed his right, to educate his child reD churchmen. I claimed a similar right to educate minr 10 the fear of the Lord, and I reverently hope I shall have grace and wisdom to do so. Now, if anotheV man will edu cate his child an atheist, I certainly should not like to b. hIS neighbour; but I deny that you have any right to punisl, him for it. To the Most High alone he i. accountabte If I have weaned you, it is because Mr Francis has led me a. far, and into so many directions, out of the record There an some two or three particulars that I should like to touch upon but I believe I have referred to all the salient points of the dis- cussion. I am very happy to have so many reasons to believe that this discussion will produce no rancour, and create no ani' mosity. I havo not felt, nor do I feel, the slightest vexation or annoyance. 1 should be ashamed to show my face, if I nert so thia*skinned a« not to bo able to hoar calmly any attempt to Jisprov# thy principles. I could Dot comfortably apptt7 among t vy fellows, if 1 could not at all tjm," bear being told in tern- •pra'e spirit and language th*' l t a-in "irer. | think "t e san • ^elings are che'islied on hotli s <-ti. Mr Fi«"ci» 'a^t n g' i l" 'ted ihose who think with him to rally rcund the Church ot England He had a perfect ugh' to do so. I tia«e a similat ■ ghi, and I earnestly invite all who think wnh me, io use thei' itmosi effir's 10 defezr this attempt to abridge our liberties. I I, and leave my children a more i-oniracted frredom then their ather enjoyed It is our duiv to maintain these rights jea- and, esol utel y. If we do not a' all I :mes iinow eur nfluence into the contest between Despotism and Liberty, who *ill ? We cacnot call on the subjects of the Auto rat of all he Ruuiu-hnlng cicf freedom themselves it is useless '0 go o Piussia—wheie there is no constituiion. but an unmixed lesporitim; for the same reason we gel DO aid fiom Austiia; «ud almost as unavailing will it be. to expect aid fiom France, n the working of whose government, at all events, some of The primordial elements of religious freedom are wanting. It is eft to us to maintain xtcepteM watchfulness in the cause 01 iberty, assisted only by our desce'tf^Strts and fellow-Iabuulen icross the Allaotic-tbe noble America#(cheeis)— who ai ance shook off civil and religious despotism. This is our pre. rogative-our high, our commanding position. We must be free or die. who speak the tongue That Shakespeare spoke—the faith and morals hold Which Milton held. In every thing we are sprung Of earth's first blood-have titles manifold." We should never despair. Our cause is imperishable—it can- not die f Thon ha-t Powers that will work for thee, air, eartb, and skies; There's not a tireoatbing of the common wind ThatwHI ferret thee thou hast great allies: Thy friends ats exaltations, agonies, And love, and man?s un90nquerable mind." (Long-continued applause.) Mr. Stephen having concluded, amidst loud cheering, Mr. Fran being entitled by the terms of the discussion 10 reply, rose amidst great applause, and At this laie hour it will he impossible for me to notIce the several particulars in Mr. Stephen's address, ei.nd imus e • fore. adopt the suggestion of a friend near me, whv to comment upon those statements only which an importance. (Confusion.) 1 thought I was addressing assembly of Englishmen, but no proceeding can be more Oh English than these unseemly interruptions. 1 am justly enti- tled to a fair and candid hearing. 1 consented, contrary 10 all precedent, that my opponent should have twenty-four hours to prep ire an answer to my address, and yet yofl are ungenerous enough to endeavour to put me down by clamour the moment I commence an unpremeditated reply. You would do well to imitated the high example set you by the churchmen in the room. Though you interrupted me in every possible manner, when delivering my address last night, yet there has been no attempt at retaliation on the part of my friends. Mr. Stephen has met with no interruption you have cheered him contrary to the stipulation entered into at the opening of the meeting, yet scarcely a murmur of disapp obation was heard from those who support me. (The confusion continuing, the chairman rose, and with much energy of manner said, I am ashamed of you. Mr. Stephens has been fairly edrd, and it is scanda. lousthat Mr. Francis should be interrupted. I will insist upon his having a hearing, if 1 am even obliged to get the police to remove those who are causing the confusion. Order being 11. some degree restored, Mr. Francis proceeded.) I was, I con- fess, a good deal surprised at the opening statement of she ad- dress of my opponent, in which he endeavoured to make It ap. pe r that I was the sole cause of this controversy. The ground of the allegation is, that 1 came forward of my own accord at a Meeting which they had called for the specific purpose of petitioning aga nst the bill. I have befote stated it. and 1 again repeat it, that the speakers at that meeting thought II quite at necessary to vilify the church as to speak against the bill. (Cheers.) Had the speakers confined themselves '0 the su ject for which it was professedly called. I should not have in- terfered with them in the exercise of their undoubted right ol petitioning against the bill, hut as they went out of the way t attack the church. I felt it my duty to ask the chairman's per- mission to speak, and I appeal to voti sir whether I obtruded my. self on that meeting without having your consent. Mr Siephfc.n- l think, might have t een well >atisfied witu the repoit oflh, proceeding's as given in the impartial columns of the MEKLIK. without making a very unnecessary display of his prowess hy subsequeiitlysendingmeachaUengein thatpaper. 1 have beeti fold that some of Mr Stephen'sfriends concur in my views ofthi, matter, and that they have toul him that his challenge was perfectly uncalled for. This, however, is not a matter of mucii consequence, ani I iherefo-e proceed to noiice his next state- m nt namely, that 1 travelled out of the record. I am not sa- tisfied 0f this, but granted I a' 1 did so. yet I think the meeting will agree with me that he manifested commendable caution i" not travelling into it. Why he most anxiously avoided even point of importance in my address, and this too, afier twenty four hours preparation. What a length of time was consume on the subject of the trust of the proposed schools a point which I disiincily stated 1 regarded as of little importance. I con- tended that the church was entitled to a preponderating iuflu ence in the management of the schools, from the fact thnt sit, constituted the great majority of the nation, and I established this 1 y a reference to documents which all must admit to be unexceptionable buheneverglaiicedatthis. He could not suc- cessfully controvert the statement, and as long as the state- ment could not e disproved, the most convenient way was to pass it over without notice For all the ingenuity in the world would not be sufficient tu make it appear that if the church has d majo'ity on her side, she has n )t a rijiht to demand a propor- lionate influence in the manage nent of the proposed schooh. (Cheers and hisses.) I I IS in Y d ill to appeal, as was done on it pr vious occasion, to the repeal of the test and corporatiot acts, and that the constitution giants equal religious rights to ill the repeal of these acts never was meant o put the mi- nority on a footing with the uiMj >>ity, and to plead for it is v-'lciim the light oftyraoniing over the church, and of degrad- ing her from her rightful position. This was the material poin in my argument, that h. ought to have grappled with, hut thi, lie would not do, and therefore he has recourse to the weltl. iiough unfortunately, common expedient of putting promi ently forward some exciting topic to excite the minds of 1udlence and 10 diveit toeir Thuughts from the proper su'jer 0 dispute. The next itie.npt made was 10 suslaill Ihe ohjec tion Ihatlhe bill was unconstiturional. I slated last night tha ) did not consider myself competent to argue questions of con siimiional law. 1 have always, however, cherished tbe mom Hdenl attachment to our unriv .tied constitution if, how t-ver. I could embrace Mr-Stephen's doctrine of the constitu tion I.shoul,1 be brought to night, for the first time in my lift to believe that there were serious defects in that constitution. (Chetrs.) If no taxes on be raised constitutionally, for till education of the poor. then 1 think it would tie well to amenl the constitution yet. some howoroiher, I have ahu ys thoug that laxes levIed under a ithoiity of an act of Pailiamen' which, in the event of the bill becoming law will be the rase were levied with consent, as all par ies are considered as givim consent through their representatives. But to proceed— my assertion that the church has done more in promoting tho -ducation of the poor thsta the dissenters, has been impugned, but my statement res'ea upon documents which incontestibh prove the point; nothing like argument was attempted to shew Ihe contraiv, but it was must complacently asserted, that it hssenters had had the same means that we have had, thev have done more. Indeed! Who lold you that? Oh you reply, look at the report of the Charity Commissioners. And what of Ihat 1 Is human nature 10 pure in dissenters, and 10 •orrupt in churchmen, that it is impossible for dissenters in tin apse ofaes, and under any and every imaginable combina tion of circumstances, ever to ahuse a charity (Cheers) ) know of no reason why dissenters ould draw such invidious comparisons between themselves and churchmen Are dis seniers moie upright in their dealings than churchmen ? All they found to.be less susceptible of coriupting influences than chulchmen 1 For my own part I think not. And again I Ie jeat the question, what ground have you for this offensive tate. ment 1 You will, perhaps, say, because it has never been proved that we were ever guilty of abusmg any public charity. Perhaps not—but do you know why 1 Because you never had any to abuse. No, all the educational chanties of the country are the bequests of churchmen. Look at Coulston s Scool: at Bristol. Enquire into the origin of almost any similar institu tion. Let dissenters point to a sohtary lDstlnce of. a school endowed by one of themselves for the general education of the poor. No wonder you never abused these. None of your an- cestors have felt interest enough in the education of the poor to endanger your integrity. You may indeed boast of your virtues in these matters, when the want of charity in your societies puts you, in these matters wholly beyond the reach of teropts- tat Ion. But Joseph Lancaster, we are next told, was greatly impeded in his endeavours to promote education by the cler- gy of his day. But it was admitted that George the Third sup- ported him most strenuously. Well, was George the Third a dissenter 1 I suppose not—for little as I know about consti tutlonallaw, I happen to know that the sovereign of the realms must be a churchman. So that, after all, it appears from Mr. Stephen's own shewing, there was, at least one considerable churchman as long ago as the days of Joseph Lancaster, who took a lively interest in the education of the poor. By the way, what is become of the Lancastrian School in this town ? There is nothing like examples taken from near home. Is it, or is it not true, that as soon as the national schools were opened in this town, the dissenters of Newport, with all their zeal for the education of the poor,allowed that institution to go to the ground, and, worse than all, have never to this day paid the master's salary] A master, to whose ability, I gladly bear testimony. A man, too, with a large family, and at this very moment, the dissenting committee ot the Lancastenan scbool owe hIm nearly lOO. (Cheers.) Oh, if churchmen had done this, how heat tily you would shout out shame. I now proceed to notice a subject of solemn interest, and that is the comparative influ ence of the church and dissent on the population. 1 thought the case, as 1 had put ir, was strong enough against dissent but Mr. Stephen has greatly increased Ihedifficulties of hj position by the disclosures he has made. The numler of peti- tions from this neighbourhood, and thejimazing amount of sig- nalules attached to them showed that dissenl was Rleatly pre valent in ihe hills, but now we learn that the dissenlelS hav, erected not fewer than 200 chapels in that neighbouihood, and some of these chapels have congiegations so numerous that I have never seen anything approaching to it in OUt largest churches, and yet, the desper >te condition of the populaliol of that distiict is too plain to be disputed. (Cheers and hisses.) What a comment this on dissent. Does any mar living suppose that if there were only a hundred churches in that neighbourhood, the Newport riots would have ever taken place, or that it would require a large military foroe to preaerv the peace of this county. (1 remendaas nproar, and hitting ) Mr. Francis: You may hiss as mach as you please, but you will not put me down. I am resolved you shall hear the troth at whatever peril to myself. 1 can state that at the time of the riots, there was not a single churchman amongst the wounded I went, as my duty was, after that melancholy affray, and vi sited tbe dying and the wounded nearly aU the wounded wert afterwards removed to the workhouse, where they were under my charge; and I had it from the lips of some of them, that they bad never in their lives been in a church above once or twice—and then only at a wedding or a funeral. There was indeed, one man who had been a churchman, who took a very prominent part in the proceedings of that fatal day. He had been a teacher in my Sunday-school, but long before tbe not. he left the chorch. I have now in my possession very affectins letters from him in winch be attributes all his misfortunes to his leaving Ihe church. (Great confusion.) But let us hear what enlightened dissenters themselves have said aboot the church, l'be meeting, I am sure, will excose me for readin, 'he following very eloquent passage from the writing, of an eminent dissenter, Dr. Vaagban ;— g In the case of multitudes, the zeal now evinced in tho .v* Established Church has its origin, no douht.in much laudable purpos. and feeling, such as the men who think it mistaken should be prepare to respect. In the v,ew of no small numbers of her children th. Church of England u possessed of such attractions as belong not to an. uher institution 011 earth. Among all the ordinances of God or of man esteemed the most lvely, the most benignant. Her antiquity ca, nes the mind back to the infancy of our condition as a people. Hervisi ble structures, in every form and shade of beauty, are the still and sen "ble links which connect her history with all the changes of the past In their completeness, or as they take the shape of the ivy-mantle ruin, they serve to call up the bv-gone in lengthened sucession until the imagination rests upon the rudest appearances, amidst the leepening shadows of the most distant time. Before her altars al our fathers stood on their bridal day and to her sacred enclosure they surrendered their ashes when their race was run. Her solemn orms of worship become more and more impressive to the living, a, being through so many ages mementos of the dead. Beneath hei oofs—beneath the humblest in common with the proudest-the men all degrees have worshipped for more than a thousand years Thl very paths leading to the spaces on which her spires and turrets lif themselves towards heaven, have been, in a measure, sacred to the usages of the people, and the Sabbath morning groups in our parishes •re among the socia pictures we haft always tresnfbnd of enmshag. But the institution thus interwoven with the howesttsd remembrance* and sympathies has still higher claims on our veneration. AS » back oa the history «f t' is church, we s^e monarch*, H line "i c.' n ti, do :1trrna v tOr ct. Q AllrC: vttWhLVrš. u<»w lt h*r siaiue, « ■- her blessing- Her riHt_-rr, her scholars, and i r «t-ou' ru j flearu as the oui* «vtxu#r sprit if of her times i^ot a few of pear like jlersonitk11!j4,-ft at the repose ot aoctber wor:d IImidst the darkness S"ch intu r ,-to lLJg 0.1 their own profound thoupw. aad scfonip in their own nrb. are ofteii seen rising high above nil the 1"- of th«*T■ a/e. wiien season s»m«, some of thisec-mld take the place »f me to" martvr,giving to the dignity of their Spift.-ej.jite the igh adorn- ment of a spirit ready to be otiered as al: otdatior. tn altar oi truth and sanctity ""h were Latimer and Hooper, such ,re Kidleyanu Bradford. At these images of *'e«{ aut *«*•,«>< the ww- linessandgreatness,ofii.e>>rteM«etual, use moral, andt eho.).thro«gt» the past, arrest the eve of th» etewrebroan's im^niuon,ant. «i« » hiodPWs heart to the .y.tem which they are so n*t*r*)l, "'lOcia ted." But W ales, Sit. Stephen tajs, is dissenting caontry; and he asks me le point out any pert «f E'"dlSn.1 where the |.opuiaiion are lttort peaceable. Hltll he nothing of (be la«lesf tuob» th*f h**« ,no th# turnpike-gates there; and I kie*, if dues not. that the neighbourhoods in wbioh these v T,?. ?n mitted, are emitioutly dissenting. (Confusiw.) lhe church everj where sufficiently strong in Wales, to **ert at lea«t a considerable degree of beuefioial influence. No ooubl dissent has done much to p/omote the moral improvement of roanv dis- tricts 01 tbe Principality; and I allude especially to the e so Methodists bat whence had they tbeir orilln, kom tbe chareo; and I am old enoagb to remember many au ordairtcd clergyman mon" the preachers of that connection. These men, retaining mucb of that love of order, which is one of the leadl," cha- racteristics of tbe church, in which they wt-re ated, pre* duced an influence amongst that body ot very difffc" rent from that wbicb has since beltun to spring lewagst them: the Methodists are yet in some degree distineufoberS by their peaceable demeanour whereas the Baptists and Inde- pendents in tbe Pi iocipality, exercise much tbe same influence in proportion to their numbers, as they do in the Hill distnete of this county. But my opponent endeavoured lo elude the: force of my reasoning, by citiag lbe cue of Tborn, who. he ■avs, collected several followers within sonnd of Onierbury hells. But what was tbi. poor wretched man after all. bot a dissenter. Why should the dissenters blame as because of him, when it is one of their leading piinciples, that every man has a right to set op a seot for himself; and so diligent have they been in inculcating this, that many scarcely think that they can do wtong in following any religions leaner. It is disxeoting principles that give facility to snch impostors. Mr. Stephen sin endeavours to shield himself behind the statement which f||J'Y -merly quoted Irom Sir Robert Peel. Does be sappose that 1 co«. 'c' not 1aote of Sir R. Peel in favour or a Kill Kmnl/ht :n by member of bis own government, t he fact i« T Hnnhi not t't at 'he time Sir R. Peel made th* reply to i *rA l r..C .ti m s'°h l"14 b**D *° ■uoh relied on, he felt from i^„±.!t'iV >>? "r"T •i" t?'" op- ,.ose Lord John's scheme ^ucalion s bnt .fter the statements of Lord Ashley, be ventured u hoPe ,#d 4 ''ob o! tbe poor, i be expU- dissenters to consent to tbe educa v. tb, nat.on given of the appropriate o» .e*lv t0 t*ar 0(|l my Nal,onal chnrchmen. argumeul in support of the eopenor libera. J Let it, however, be remembered tbot eborchl* ofNorwieh l>ancastrisn schools and amongst others IboBishop^ D_r-_ u who is always present at the annoal examination of tba institution. Tbe statement made by aootber di*w minister, that a man bad a right to educate hit efeiM an alb*. T* Jlr. Mephen has adopted, and by so doing, made 8Ñt ews. K -.honld like to know whence he acquired this right; it was not ijiven, it is admitted, by the Divine Being; and I do not tbiafc that society can concede to him that right. His child is to live 1:1 a stale of society—and society has, therefore, a right to ft. mand that be should not be trained up in principles subversive af all social order. (Cbeera aDd b') Locke, at any rate, contends that an Atheist is not eotitled to toleration; for be Virgoes that a mall who denies the being of God can be bound hy oo oatb. Locke may be right or he ma) be wrong bnt as his name has justly great weight with dissenters, 1 may safely leave Mr. Stephen to tettte tbe matter with hits. The great principle involving this whole discussioi-, has been repeatedly referred to, nlmelJ whether the State has aright to educate religiously and 1 should like much io enter upon it fully, bot you are so constantly interrupting m that it would be im,pos- sible to do so with any effect; and I must therefore proceei fa notice a few more matters referred 10 by Mr. Stephen. I was laQ to bear him admit that true liberty is to be found in Eng- land thi..uK'' from the cheers of a portion of the meeting, when \inerica wa. mentioned, 1 perceiu tblt tb. sympathies of some Imongst you, h..tJc1 much moie powerfully to bat country tbsn o yuur native land. I am hsppy to "Y with me il qOlt8 itie raverse. I am convinced that in no country in the "orld is there so much "1 liberty and freedolll of tbeaght u HI oa own. (Cheer..) Te;" e not of tbe supror Jib.rtJ of America. wJien no man there aSr" "tter \» 0P,n,0B ,co",rM7 to thst ot tbe majority, and when w* ',e*r °f many instances 01 Lynch law. took again at its .la»^« < £ voice, ne_ar the platform Onlj in tbesoutbern states.) iv r* ,DC,#: (*lk,n8 his eye. on the person who made the Äre yo Chartist?—Yes. I am Then you ought not to a.. be. tempting me all the evening, for if you bad taken soviet i you, all the disasters you have brought open this ev',un'rJ and upon yourselves, would have benn avoided (Great III,r.r. cries of Turn him out; hisses and gioans.) But do you ihinv it an adequate apology for slaveiy, to say that it is found only in the southern states. Why should so enormous an evil ho tolerated in southern or northern states, by a people wb-i are to loud in their praise of tiber.y. Why, throughout the wido dominions of the British crown, slavery is not known tfeat lack slain has been nobly wiped out from those parts of ttmr Einpiie, that were at one lime tarnished by il. Mr. Stephen i8 •vinding up bis address, earnnstly exhorted yoa to stand ior vour constitutional rights and so do 1: but at the same time, [ warn you not to be led away by abstract theories, so as to deprive yourselves and your childreD of substantial ood. Theories which teach you that it is unconstitutional to tho dible to the poor, yonr common sense may tell you are not to he depended upon. (Cheers.) The chnrch is now labouring .0 •ehalf of the poor and therefore should receive th" ennoo. a^ement and support of the (Great uproar ) cvidenoe bM b^m affo^ f* of lisseni were yon to relurn to the cburoi. a happier slate of liiiiifii would soon sprinif n^ amongst us- (I/Hugnter.) In the .vor..b.p or Ibe churcb, the rich IJlei the poor meet toother— cries of No, no)—an<( how greatly this lends to j romote a .ood undemanding be ween the different cla-se^ of Socletv I II ed not insist on ( t remendoas nproar ) At present ihere is no olten an enlite want 0 f confidence between the employer ind the employed, which cannot fail to prove a feiti<e source of iiisery. it has been clearly shown, loo, in ihis discussion, tbat he church atone consistently can promote the nal»»iial. eduea- ion of the poor. (Gieat confusion.) It has been admitted bv ny opponent, that their principles are opi osed to a. inter e- ence on the part of government, to promote any plan ot ,CDoral -tnd religious education. I uk yon, then, as you love yoar hildren, and if yun wish to advance tha best interest* 01 your country, to aid the church in her efforts to proeure a sound aad Jhrutidii education for the poor. (Ho, DO.) Then it i* elear, that the people generally, can not be educated— I very wet — •>ome part of the meeting, it is evident, have tdopted the weU- *nown line 01 the poet Gray as Qieir maxim, Since ignorance is blias, 'tis folly to be wise." Cheers.) There are some of the labouring poor, aye, maoy >f these before me, who think more wisely who wish to nee "heirchildren educated, and I sincerely bopetheir praiseworthy (esires may be gratified. Theie was one remark of Mr. Ste- uben's. in which I oordially concur, which was, tbatererjr angry eeling may be dismissed from onr minds. (Hear, hear,) For uy own part, I can truly state that no snch feeling is barbonred n mi breast, notwithstanding tbe earnestness of my manner ia iridiessing the meeting, I can atfirm that I regard my opponent Aith peifect cordiality. (Cheers.) I cberilb no "pal" of aa- ler against any dissenter—(hear, bear)-ne, nor against tbe Chartists, although they have treated me with so ranch unfair- ness. With respect to the Chartists, I can safely say tbat I liave ever endeavoured to do them good-url that when I bays opposed them, it has been from a hearty desire to promote tbeir best interests, both temporal and eternal. (Cheers.) I feel very confident that good will result from this discussion. Churchmen, I hope, will be led by it to value their privileges, and not to entertain any unkindly feeling towards their dissent- ing neighbours—(cheers)—and that dissenters will be led to entertain more favourable opinions both of tbe oburcb and tier members. (Load and protracted cheering.) Mr. Francis and Mr. Stephen then rose together, when the former of tho reverend gentleman presented himself to Ilschargl, what he termed, a most pleasing duty, that of noving the cordial thanks of the meeting to tht Mayor, for the creditable and impartial manner in which he bad conducted himself during the discussion. (Loud cheers), Mr. Stephen fully concurring in the approbation ex- pressed by his reverend opponent of the admirable conducl of the Mayor, felt great pleasure in seconding the resolu- ion, which was passed unanimously amid loud cheering. The Mayor having briefly returned lhaoks, Mr. Francia and Mr. Stephen cordially shook bands befprt the meeting, when the crowds separated. There were about fifteen hundred persons prffcMt evening.