TO MR. JOHN PHILLIPS, DISSENTING I MINISTER BANGOR. Sir,—As you profess an apparently unfeigned repug- nance to ecclesiastical titles of every kind, I have aiiixed one of common courtesy only to your name; and I am bound to believe that you will ?t as thank- ful to me for having adopted this course,, as I am at beinir thus spared the pain of informing you why I should he unwilling to attach any other title to it. Mv attention has lately been directed by a friend to a lc-ettire delivered by you, some time back, at a dis- senting place of worship in the town of Bangor. Upon reading the placard which announced this lecture, and which was printed in the same journal with it, I not unreasonably concluded that your objpet wonld be to prove that Popery was worse than Dissent; there- verse. as you say, having been the charge brought against your party (whether justly or not I do not pre- tend to determine) by the North II ales Chronicle.— Here, however, 1 was in error, rrom tile nurouue- tory portion of the lecture, I learn flint its object will be, not to prove that Popery is worse than Dissent,but once more to revive arguments which Withers and Cartwright advanced, and Hooker refuted, nearly three hundred years ago to prove, in short, that you have conscientious grounds for separation from the Church of England or in your own words, to shew that the dictates of conscience have placed you under a moral compulsion to reject membership in that Church." Conscience, Sir, in these days, I need hardly inform you, is a most dangerous tiling to meddle with and if it were less so, my own opinions on the question of religious toleration, would not allow ine for a moment to think of interfering with its dictates to any individual or class of men whatsoever. I have neither a right nor a wish to do vjolcne to your own or any other man's re!ig!ous scruples. But, in com- ,:?.n ?ith every other individual, I have a perfect right to question the validity and logical accuracy of the arguments whereby you attempt to maintain the po- sition you have assumed. The duty incumbent upon everv man, at all times, and in all places, to stand up ia defence of the truth, confers this right upon me; and, for reasons 1am about to disclose, I have been, induced oil the present occasion to exercise it. j lou will pardon me, 1 trust, wnenisay, mai nir.i your lecture been delivered to men of reading and education cqunl, or superior, to your own, it would never have attracted more than a cursory perusal from me if as much as this. But such was not the case. I know enough of Dissent to feel r.ssured that the great bulk of your audience would consist of small farmers, shopkeepers, and peasants; a class of men which, in Wales, I am ready to admit, is second to no other in national intelligence and quickness of parts; nevertheless, one composed of persons who are as rarely disposed to draw legitimate (or indeed any) inferences from facts connected with Ecclesiastical History, as they are unaccustomed to deep theological research: men to whom tiie original language of the ,'II' 'l'estn!l1nt is a dead lettei, who know as much about the writings of Cyprian as they do about the love-songs of Ovid, s or the lt Gods of Homer; men," in short, who would be but too liable, and, I re- gret to express my belief, in the present instance, but too willing, to accept assertion for fact, or assurance for argument; to mistake conjecture for induction, or dogma for a dictum. Under these circumstances, however repugnant to my feelings to introduce a reli- gious discussion into the columns of a newspaper, I feel it to be a duty I owe alike to the cause of truth and that Church to which I esteem it a privilege to belong, to resort to this llleans of exposing the falla- cies of your argument, and the general looseness and inaccuracy of your reasoning. The same cause has led me designedly to write this letter ill a popular style and I shall take all the pre- cautions in my power to insure it:") being interesting ami intelligible to that class of men to whom your ob- servations were almost exclusively addressed; and who 1 think were the ollly people likcly to he deceived by your arguments, or led into talse conclusions by your premises, As I haveassumedauanonymous signature, it is rt?"pethaps,Ishouhlpreface)nyremark9with a t?w () 1).iorvatioii, iii3,self' I am, Sir, one of those men who have spent a number of terms at (,I' tit.se iiieIlp 'I in -our lcetiii-c N,,)ti one of, tile f tlic! sttiienti of tiies?? venerable Institu- tions as occupied in "eating Latin and drinking Greek." [confer.hat 1am myself somewhat puz- zled to discver either the point or wit of this expres- sioa, Hut if you mean by it to imply that these young men derive iutdlcctual strength and vigour from im- hi bing the literature of ancient Greece and Rome, I alii willing to acknowledge the truth of your remark, although at the same time, I must confess, I cannot admire^the beauty of your metaphor, or the polish and l) luity of your diction. Yes, Sir, I feel a plcasnrr, Iwt unmixed, on the present occasion, with priùe, ill acknowledging that many of the happiest hours of my lit'e have been spent in contemplating the beauties of those •' fables and love-songs of Ovid," in converse with those Gods and heroes of Homer,"whichyou, would appear so thoroughly to despise. I have reason to believe, too, that thesc studies have not been so unprofitable as you would imply. If nothing else, they have enabled me to compare the theological sys- tems of Greece and Rome, and indeed of the whole, ancient world, with that which is revealed to man in the Bible they have shewn me the incomparable su- periority and purity of the latter over all other sys- tems and thus they have taught me to cling, with greater confidence of their ultimate fulfilment, to the iiopes which the Christian religion unfolds to man but above all, Sir, they have made ine familiar with the grammatical construction and idiom of that lan- ?uage in which the New Testament was originally written, and a familiar acquaintance with which is so essentialy requisite before a man attempts to discuss matters connected either with ecclesiastical polity or doctrinal truth. Further than this, Sir, I will inform you that I have devoted many years of my life almost exclusively to the study of tfe more severe and exact sciences. Neither can I allow this time to have been wasted, even in a religious point of view. Such studies I have shewn me how the natural appearances of the uninrse are all reducible to fixed and general laws; they have shewn me the invariable fitness of those laws ?o promote the happiness and benelicial course of the wor, and they have thus led me, by an inde- pendent process, to form conceptions of the divine power, goodness, and superintendence, which I find agree in a remarkahle manner with those I was pre- viously taught to entertain of them from the letter of revelation. But above all, Sir, they have taught me a co) red and logical mode of argument and induction they have brought me on no occasion to take simple assertion for proof, or any man's assurance for argu- ment Quitting these remarks, I will now proceed to dis- cuss thesubject matterof your lecture, and I shall t??k, yom arguments seriatim, in the order in which they occur. I would, however, here draw attention gene-I rally to a mode of proceeding which, had I been writing on any other occaion, I should have desig- nated as trifling; but which, when I consider the na- ture and constitution of your audience, I cannot de- signate by any milder term than vicious. I allude to the tendency, more or less rli8cernihle throughout your lecture, to take things for granted which you have never proved and to the great paucity of quota- tions and references to be found throughout the lec- ture. You seldom advance more than an isolated text of scripture to prove your point and frequently not so much as this. I need not remind, you, Sir, that the saying of one of those Archdeacons (of whose very titles you appear to have a well-grounded dread) that" he alone discovers who proves," is equally ap- plicable to an argument. What has been impugned only on your simple assertion, I cannot think re- quires any notice from me beyond this general cau- ?,i,)ii. I shall not therefore waste my time in defend- ing points which are thus glossed over and trifled with. You preface your argument by remarking, that you would not hurt the feelings or lower the character of any one. Whether insinuating that your adversary I was Imiler the influence of Satan and, because lie happens to differ from yon on a religious question,ap- plying to him such opprobrious terms as the mother I of harlots," and" ull the abomination" of the earth," be a specimen of Christian charity and brotherly jove, or a proof that you are acting up to your assertion, I shall not trouble myself to determine. It very little coneerns me, or my argument, whether you terlll your opponent "a beat," or a "harlot," or any other earthly abomination whatsoever. From the strong democratical bias discernible throughout your lecture, I must confess I am somewhat surprised to find you granting in the very outset that the kingdom of Heaven is a monarchy, of which Christ ii king that to him, ard him alone, belong the au- thority to enact laws, to institute oilices and to appoint ordinances. That laws, offices, and ordinances have been so appointed by him that these are all written in the New Testament, and that he whoaddeth thereto or subtracteth there from is not guiltless." At the close of the next paragraph but one you remark with refer- ence to Ecclesiastical titles; How then can we rea- sonably consider this list tobe offices of Christ's Church, when h, z,,ver i(iiiif,d thent ?" Hence I think I may legitimately infer that in your opinion no Ecclesiastical title, office, or ordinance, can be binding upon Chris- tians, unless it has been expressly named and instituted by Christ himself, and that unlcss it has bcen so named and instituted, it is a grievous sin for any Christian to assume it. Now, Sir, in reading of the transactions of the non- conformist body I invariably find a talented Minister among them designated as the Reverend Doctor Vaug'han. You ) ourself are styled the Reverend John Phillips in the very paper in which your abhorrence of all Ecclesiastical titles is reported. Now whcre am I to find any warrant in the Bible for you to attach such titles as Doctor and Reverend to your names ? Titles these, which, to use your own words "are indirect opposition to the positive exhortation of Christ himself, for thus saith the Lord, (say you) "Be yc lIot call cd Rahhi, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren." Surely, Sir, you have added to the Book of the Lord"by assuming such titles as Doctor and Reverend, equally with the Clergy of the Anglican Church who have assumed to themselves the appella- tions of Dean, Archdeacon, and Rector. Your own argument, and not mine, has convicted you of a griev- ous sin in the sight of Heaven. Gall forbid that I should ever esteem a man guilty of sin for assuming such innocent and unpretending titles as the above 1 have only for a moment adopted your own argument, to shew the utter wonhlessness and untenable nature of the ground you have chosen, on which to make your attack. A"ain Sir, I do not profess to know much about your ofifcers, hut I am told by yourelf that you have one called a Deacon, and in Welsh I have commonly heard this omcer designated hy the word Blue nor. But I have looked in vain throughout thc four Gospels to discover any mention of the word Deacon or Blaenor by our Lord; indeed it is my belief that the latter of these appellations is as great a stranger to the New Testament as the word Vicar or Rector is. The office of Deacon was noteven instituted untii after our Lord's death. Am I not then bound to believe that you have added to the word of God, and are not guiltless in his sight ? If you object to this that the office was insti- tuted at the intimation of the Spirit to the Apostles, I am willing to allow the objection to stand (although you yourself are not) on condition that you answer the following questions in the affirmative: In the first. Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy (chapter ii. verse 1,) 1 iiiid a iiiost solemn exhortation, amount- ing indeed to an injunction, that every time the early Christians assembled themselves together for prayer, they should pray" for kings al/dall that are in uu- j thority." Di, yuu do this every time you assemble tor religious worship ? I must confess the spirit of your lccture induces me to doubt this. Again, in the second chapter of ikets lN-ei-se 11, I read that the early Chris- tiitiis had all things common. Is this the case with your 1 sect? InSt. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, (chap. xvi. verse I,) I find an order given to that Church, (and not to that only, but extended to others also,) to "lay by them on the first day of the week as God hath prospered them." Do you act up to this injunction? In 2 Corinthians, ii. verse 1, I find that it was an esta- blished custom in the Primitive Church to give letters commendatory to a Bishop, or as you will have it an Elder, when he travelled from one place to another. Is this custom in force with you' In St. Paul's first I E'¡istle to Timothy, (chapter v. verse 9,)Ifind the foHowi))gp:tSsage? Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore jears old. When I compare this with Acts, chapter vi. verse 1, 1 cannot doubt that from the first formation of the Christian Church a regular provision was made out of the public funds of the society for the order of widows which be- longed to it. Have you such an order or such a pro- vision among you? Last of all, Sir, I find in the xxii. v ￼ i oii ainon,? chapter of St. Matthew, verse 2, our Blessed Lord himself solemnly exhorting his disciples to the follow- ing effect: "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' scat, whatsoever therefore they bid you observe, Ihat observe and do," When your sect first separated itself from the Church of England, and thus rebelled against the authority of those whom your ancestors oppro- hriously termed" Scribes and Pharisees," was it acting in obedience to this precept? a precept too of our Lord himself! Unless you can answer all these ques- tions in the affirmative, I am bound to convict );ou, (and I do it only on your argument) of IHlving taku1 from the word of God you have committed a grievous sin. Bnt I h ive yet another question to put to you before I have done. I never yet met with II Dissenter who was not most scrupulous (and rightly too) in his observance of the Christian Sabbath, and who did not consider it an ordinance binding upon every man. I know that your nonconforming ancestors, in their zeal for the proper observance of this day, have even pro- ceeded to such lengths as to tie up a Clergyman of the Church of England to the whipping post for walking too fast from Church on a Sunday I ask you yourself whether you do not consider the observance of the Christian 'Sabbath binding upon all Christians. I take it for granted that you answer in the affirmative; and I further ask you to produce from Scripture a single proof that such was our Lord's institution or that o. ds Apostles, You cannot do this. Ilien I am bound oil \our hypothesis to deem it "human and unimport- ant." But I have not quite done yet. In the Old Testament I fintlll10st solemnly enjoined upon mankind the duty of keeping the seventh day Holy. Do you act up to this command.' You do not. Prodnce yonr au- thority from Scripture for this disobedience to God's command. You cannot. Then, Sir, I convict you on your own argument of a heinous sin. I will now, Sir, tell you why I, as a member of the Church of England do not consider that I am commit- ting a sin, or transgressing God's word, by giving to the Clergy such titles as Curates, Vicars, Rectors, Archdeacons, &rc. In the first place, I can clearly collect from St. Paul's Epistles to 'I imothy and 1 Corin- thians (chapter xiv. verse 10,) as well as from Acts (chapter vi. verse 1,) that there were various titles given both to the Laity and Clergy of the early Chuch, but that such titles were very (fiflerent from the three orders of Ministers, Apostles, Elders, or Bishops, an d Deacons. I also learn from Eusebius (Eccles. Hist-vi that there existed in the Church about the year 251, such classes and officers as subdeacon, acolyttes, readers, janitors and widows. I know that this last was an order in the time of St, Paul, and this confirms me in the belief that many of the others might be so. I have a Scriptural warrant for believing that there are innumerable grades and degrees of rank in the Com- munion of Saints above, I cannot therefore consider it sinful that such grades should exist in the Communion of Christians below. List of all, Sir, coiiiiiioit sense tells me that the mere giving of such titles to Eccle- siastical ofifcers cannot be a sin, or a substantial ground for leaving the Chnrch's Communion. You know as well as myself, that the three Estates of this realm are King, Lords, and Commons. You know also that you are bound by the most solemn ties of duty and religion to obev the Constitution under which you live. But according to your argument you are freed from your allegiance to your sovereign, you are at perfect liberty to constitute yourself and your followers into a little republic, simply because the state recognizes such officers as Prime Minister, Secretaries of State, Judges, General i, Admirals and Captains! I will not, however, press you further on this head you seem yourself to be thoroughly ashamed of your argument by your concluding paragraph, and it would be cruel to press it further against you. In my next letter I shall consider some of the other arguments you advance. I now remain, Sir, your obedient Servant, A. SILURIAN. Wilberforce' History of the American Church.
TO MR, JOHN PHILLIPS, CALVINISTIC METHODIST MINISTER. IN BANGOR. Sir,—In your letter published in the last North Chro ?'ic", Y?, -all Wales Chronicle you acknowledge as generally correct the report of your lecture, which appeared in the C??tW! Herald. As that lecture iir?t attracted my attention through the medium of a Newspaper, anil as I thought that a report hastily got up might possibly convev, on many points, a different impression from what you intended, I deemed it but fair to yourself that I should express my intention of offering some remarks upon what appeared to be unfair in your mode of handling the subject, in order to give YOIl beforehand an opportunity of either renouncing or adopting the contents of that report. Y ou have now I I I I ￼ l takell the latter course; ana, moreover, t nnu ine whole has been since republished in the form of a pamphlet, which, having your name oil its title-page, conies forth, it is presumed, with your sanction and authority. Of this I am heartily glad, because I may now feel assured that I am not combating an unreal antagonist, or wasting words upon imaginary objections. You tteUusinthebeginningofyourtpcture that you do not deliver your opinions rashly and without consideration; but that the subject has occupied much of yom attention, and that you expect all the words which cscape from your lips to be thoroughly sifted an d examine d All this s hows that you have con fi- dence in your cause, and that you ,it ILi?t think your opinions will bear the test of criticism, and that you yo.r",? are fully capable of defending them. In accordance with t?lc intention which I expressed in my former letter to you, I shallllow examine your lecture, and submit it to the test of that discussion which you almost invited; and if I prove, as I trust I shall be able to do, that your several positions arc perfectly untenable, I hope you will be induced to distrust your present theological learning, and to reconsider the whole question at issue between the Church and Dissent, Although the motive which you assigned for jtlie composition and delivery of this lecture was your anxiety to refute a certain statement which had appeared some time previously in the North Wales Chronicle, yet it cannot but appear that one, if not the only, object in view was to attack a certain portion (If thc clergy, and also to create and circulate a preju- dice against the Church which by God's blessing has been established in this country. The statement re- ferred to, which was the ostensible object of your attack, was" That secession to Popery is a less evil than secession to Dissent;" and in your preliminary observations you express your expectation that some of the clergy would have come forward to retract such an opinion set forth in what you consider their organ, "For," to use your own words, "the Church establishment of this realm, as well as the non-con- forming Churches, hold that Popery is a damnable heresy." lour object, as it appears tome, m men- tioning that the Church establishment holds Popery to be a damnable heresy," is to show, first, that the North Wales Chronicle, although professing itself a Church of England, yet is really a Popish, paper; and secondly, that the clergy, not having cone forward to disown such a statement, although professing them- selves members of a Chnrch holdin, Popery to he a dan,nablc heresy," yet arc guilty of gross unfaithful- ness, and are really Papists in disguise. This was the conclusion which you wished your hearers to arrive at, and you do not seem to doubt the soundness of the reasoning which brought you to it. Yet that conclu- sion depends entirely upon your own assertion, that the Church of England holds that Popery is a "damn- able heresy." If it were so, nothing, not even Dissent, could be worse than Popery. But where is your authority for that assertion I I am one of the clergy, but I never knew until you informed me that our Church held such a doctrine. Where is the act, or the decree in which she declares her opinion that every man professing his adherence to Popery must be eternally damned? I do not wish to defend Popery. I believe it is an erroneous system. I sineerc1y Jam "111 its many corruptions of the Christian faith and I am truly thankful that I belong to a branch of the Church Catholic whose faith and practice are free from those corruptions, and established upon the basis of more ancient and primitive times; yet I feel that truth does not require to be propped up by groundless assertions, and \lntil you produce such a declaratory act on the part of our Church, I shall still think that the Editor of a Church paper, and also the clergy, may consider themselves at full liberty to hold it as their private opinion, that Dissent is a worse evil eveii than Popery, without subjecting themselves to the charge or even the insinuation of unfaithfulness to the important trusts severally committed to them. Even if you had proved, which you do not seem to have atte pie that Dissent is a httle better than P ) eiyI yet believing the latter as you do to be a damnable heresy, that would have scarcely improved your position, for the Christian rule is, not to measure one evil by another, but to measure both by the word of God; and I wonder how it is that you do not see that by that rule the system to which you belong is entirely condemned. I shall not follow you through all your preliminary observa- tions, as I find in them much that is only mere popu- lar declamation, and much that is irrelevant, although calculated to Inislcad the unwary or ill-illfol"H1Cd. I shall, however, notice some few of the most striking and most insidious, pointing out where your inferences are clcarly wrong. In reference to the Church of England you say, It is asserted that high and lofty privileges belong to this Church, and amongst other things, that she is a very ancient institution. Granted; but we must be allowed to answer that there are many things old without beine good, and that truth is not inseparable from antiquity." To this I reply, that truth, if you mean Christian truth, of which alone I speak, is quite inseparable from antiquity; for in Christianity there is nothing true and essentially necessary to be believed now, that was not equally necessary and true 1800 years ago. Next you say "That the Ministers are people of dignity, and that her Bishops are lords. But the Scriptures make no allusion whatever to this as a qualification for the Christian Ministry." To this I reply that, if our Ministers are people of dignity, their orders make them so and if our Bishops are lord" their consecrations make them so, therefore we never supposed that any title conferred by the office could be a qualification for it, for that which is the consequence of the bestowal of a gift can never be a qualification for its reception. You say It is also stated that the nobility, gentry, and aristocracy of the country, are members of the establishment. True, hut great men are not always wise and good: and hitherto comparatively few of the nobles have been fGund devoted to the scrvices of the Gospel and the glory of God." To this I reply that we have never yet grounded the claims of our Church on the fact, whether the rich of this word are or are not members of it. You say It is also boasted, that the National Church is stationary, atHI that nothing is allowed to influence her to a change of the articles or creed or the form of the service. Ay But let us recollect that Mahometanism and Popery assume a right to the same dignity. Nevertheless, they are both destruc- tive systems, which proves that unchangeablencss and purity are not bound to one another." To this I re- ply that the Christian faith must be ever tame and michangable, but not so the forms of the Church's service; therefore, though Mahometanism may lay claim to the same tiigiiit),, still that should be no pre- judice to the Church. If some systems that are bad are unehaiigable, is the Church on that account to change ? If purity is not bound to every thing that is unchangable, does it follow that it is to every thing that is changeable ? Surely you cannot say that, yet this is the inference which you seem to aim at. Again you say It is also maintained that she is an Apostolical Church, and that her ministers are invested with Apostolical authority. Yes! but we must clothe our- r:;olNI abid:;i: to e;l;s:: that the Church of Rome loudly asserts her claim to the very same Apos- tleship. Nevertheless, in the volume of inspiration this system is called Antichrist, which shews that high claims to lofty honours, be they imaginary or real, are not a sufficient guard to keep off corruptions. No, no, we must have truth in principle an s holiness in deportment to subdue what M eyi To this I reply that the assertion of a similar claim by the Church of Rome does not in the least, in our opinion, invalidate ours; and surely when you consider the matter fur- ther, you will not think so, unless you are prepared to maintain also that we ought to renounce every thing which the Chmch of Rome possesses. In that case we should have to part with our creeds, and with much of our present Prayer Book, and in addition to this, with the whole of the Sacred Scriptures. It is to this we should be reduced if your objections were valid, and your principles correct. You will pardon me if I say that your logic is extremely bad. The na- ile ?ia tural inference from your reasoning is, that as there are many bad systems which are ancient and un- changeable, so therefore, Christianity, which is a true system, should be always new and always changing; and that as the Church of Rome asserts her apostolic authority, and is nevertheless a false Church, 1. the Church of England asserting such claim is fabe t 00e. You should, I think, have carried this reasoning one Ste further, and said, that as the Church od Rome laid claim to the possession of the Holy Scriptures, and yet was a false church, so the Calvinistic .Metho- dists laying claim to the same Scriptures, must be equally false. This, sir, is a specimen of your reason- ing, and as I have proved thus far that your accusa- tions are groundless assertions, I hope for your own sake that you will see the propriety of retracting them. I should not have noticed these things so much in dc- tail, if I did not know the influence which your posi- tion gives you over a large numher of our countrymen. I do not speak of you personally, but only as occu- ),ing a certain ministerial position. That influence, !,?t ,0,,? as I believe, fast diminishing, ;?:itill very great: and no doubt there are yet many who receive iatever emanates from such a source with as much implicit confidence as if you propounded to them the most undoubted verities. This discussion I shall con- tinue in future numbers. A MEMBER OF THE GIURCII.
TO THE REV. JOHN PHILLIPS. Sir,—In your letter of the Gth inst., to the Editor of the North Wales Chronicle, you assert that your lecture at li-iiigor "not delivered for the purpose of attacking the Church Establishment." Whatever your lectin e may have been in intention, it was, in effect, the most unjustifiable, virulent, and false-hearted attack that has been made upou the Chmch of England since the days of Cartwright the Puritan, or Fisher the Jesuit; and it consisted of such inconclusive and declamatory arguments, as would have done credit to a Collins or a Toland, while you seasoned and peppered it, to suit the corrupted palate of your audience, with the flippancy and false wit of a Voltaire. I find you have issued this lecture into the world in the form of a pamphlet. In my former letter to you, I have shewn that it is disfigured with many false ar- guments, and disgraced with several untruths. You have sent it forth, with all this deformity, the result partly of your ignorance, partly of your malice, amongst the simple peasantry of this country, who do not suspect your logic or your veracity among whom therefore it is likely to do considerable mischief. You will have to answer before the throne of the God of truth for thus disseminating falsehood under the garb ofreligion I pray you may have repentance and forgiveness before you die, at his merciful hands. But you will have to answer for it too before the tri- buna? of the ublie, to stand before which I now sum- mon you. You must not flatter yourself for one mo- ment that a man of your fame can with safety venture now to shrink from the ordeal. My indictment against you is comprised in my first letter: I call upon you to answer for yourself; and I do so with authority, as a minister of the Gospel in that Church which you have so ungenerously vilified in what you supposed to be her weakness of condition, surrounded as you find her to be by so many religious and political adversaries,- Should you cowardly evade the contest, for which I am ready on the ground of Scripture and right reason, you are already gibbetted before a hissing and an execrating public. I do not wish to alarm or frighten )-oil; nor am I unkind or unjust towards you: no the challenge is yours; it was you who threw down the gauntlet; and you must abide the conscquences. While you were content with your own sphere of activity, you were let alone but now that the die is cast, now that you have passed the Rubicon, and charged the Church with blasphemy, I darc not, as a Churchman, allow you to escape without a trial. Had you been an obscure in- dividual, I should not have noticed you; had the matter in question been of trivial moment, I should have left you to spit your venom undisturbed but as you are a man of fame, of learning, and of influence, anil as the cause in band is the cause of truth, of the Church, and of the New Testament, I once more sum- mon you, and as many Advocates as you might wish to retain, before the bar of an impartial Public, in their judicial capacity, to plead your cause, and to make good your unblushing averments about the blasphemy of our services, and your unscriptural argu- ments relative to your own pretensions to set your- selves up as Ministers of the Gospel. And I piedge myself to meet you with calmness, and to draw my conclusions by fair argumentation from Scriptural premises. r While I thus respectfully but fearlessly accept youf challenge, I do myself at the same time the honor 0 subscribing myself, Sir, Your obedient Servant, CAMBRENSIS. I
CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY. To the Editor of the North Wales Chronicle. SIII,- What do people get by railway is a qucstion often asked, first by one and then by another. I will, therefore, by your permission, Mr. Editor, furnish your readers what Mr. William Hughes, Llaneilian, got by it, and that clear into bis own pocket. Mr. Hughes lives on his own freehold, and what lie does in the way of improvements on his premises, are, of course, done for his own permanent advantage. Busi- ness led him lately to Bangor, and being there, he ex- tended his walk to Port Penrhyn, to see the quay, the slates and shipping, lie asked the price of varions sized slates-and was informed if lie only stepped into the office, he should have the full and true particulars. Those that snited his purpose were what are termed moss slates; and the sale price was fifteen shillings a thousand,-inliereas the same kind of slates, of much inferior quality, would have cost him thirty-eight shillings a thousand at Llansantttraid Glan Conway. He bought a thousand and a half for fl 2s. (id., cart- age from the port to the station, 3s, Gd" carriage by rail to the Colwyn station, 5s; being two tons weight, in all, tl 11s. Od. This saved him six miles of cartage, a turnpike gate, and £ 1 (is. Od. clear to his own pocket, when compared with the sum of £ 2 17s. Od and if the communication had been direct with the rail- way, there would have been a further saving of 3s. (id. or a little more than 15 per cent, an amount not to be despised, as every shilling in these days is needful to one who lives by the plough. Now, cannot the great railway officials, and our great landed proprietors join in feelmgs of kind charity to those in humble life, and like the Man of Ross, do what in them lies pro bono publico ? I p,;blieo! ARUUS. Juxta Montana, Dec. 17, 1850.
THE JONES'S AND SMITHS.—The labours of the Regis- ter Otrice afford some highly curious facts as to the relative number of persons of different names living in England and Wales. From time immemorial it has been thought that Smith was the commonest of names. The Smiths are soldiers, and sailors, and parsons, and tailors, and bakers, and authors, anil, indeed, everything. But the exact figures of the Registrar upset the long cherished fallacy that they form the most numerous of our clans, The Jones's outnumber them and stand at the head of the list; Smith coming seeond. This question of the frequency of particular names must interest so many per- sons that we give the followmg hst of the fifty most common appellations, in the order in which they are found to rank in the books of the Registrar, together with the number of each name, who were born, married, or died, in the year June 30th, 1837, to July 1st, 1838. Jam, 13,429 Smith, 12,6:37 Williams, 8,743 Taylor, 0 440 Davies, 5,.)K9 Brown, 5,080 Thomas, 5,278 Kvntis 4,930; Roberts, 4,19H; Johnson, 3,743; llobin- son, :¡,(j55; Wilson, 3,3tm; Wright, 3,2!J!J; Hall, 3,227; irirlics, 3 180; Wood, 3,177 Walker, 3,1-18 Lewis, 3134; Green, 3,112; Edwards, 3,097; White, 3,087; Jackson, 3,040 Turner, 2,908 Thompson, 2,871; Hill, OH.H; Harris, 2,771; Cooper, 2,693; Cl.uk, 2,iiS3; Daris, 2,061 Harrison, 2,502; Baker, 2,3*5 Ward, 2 '318; Morris, 2,299; Morgan, 2,296; Martin, 2,272; james, 2,209; King, 2,150; Clarke, 2,145; Cook, 2,135; Allen, 2,110; Price, 2,090; Phillips, 1,997; Parker, ] Moore, l,9S5; Watson, 1,908; Carter, 1,882; Richardson, 1,817; Lee, 1,815; Griffiths, 1,801 Shaw, 1,7 ;j4,-llotlsc1wltl Words. CLKIOSITIF.S FOR THE BRITISH MUSEUM.—A boot on the "last of the Mohicans." A shirt-sleeve from the arms of Morpheus." A barrel made of musical staves. Indian war hoop, f-Illitili- A nosegay containing the pink of perfection, the lfower of the family, and leaves taken at parting. A towel for wiping the face of the country. A fight between two striking likenesses. The exact amount that Marmion wanted Chester to charge. A Roman Catholic Cathedral, Convent, and, College, are to be erected at Edinburgh, says the Builder, The Cathedral is to be a50 feet long, and to have a spire 3Ha feet high the two buildings are to be connected. The funds required for the erection are said to be L400,000 more than half of which has already been obtained through large donations and bequests," 0
1 UP. A JOLLY FLARE VP." CFrom I'etidennis Old Pendennis had no special labour or billt to encoun- ter on the morrow as he had 110 affection at home to soothe him. He had alwaysmmieyin his desk suiffcient for his wants; and being by nature and habit tolerably indifferent to the wants of other people, these latter were not likely to dis- turb him. But a gentleman may be out of temper though he does not owe a shilling and though he may be ever so selfish, he must occasionally feel dispirited and lonely. H" had had two or three twinges of gout in the country- house where he had been staying: the birds were wild and shy, and the walking over ploughed fields had fatigued him deueedly the young men had laughed at him, and he had been peevish at table once or twice he had not been able to get his whist of an evening: and, in fine, was glad to come away. !n all his dcaUnsi with Morgan, his valet, he had been exceedingly sulky an d tlircoiiteiited. He h.? sworn at him and abused him for many days past. He h?d scalded his month with bad .nup at Sviullon. Je 1,,1 I left hw umorella 111 the rail-road ca.nage, at which Pil?'. '?forgetfutnef.hewasinsueharagethathecu?ed Morgan more freely than ever. Both the chimneys smoked furiously in his lodgings; and when he caused the windows to be flung open, he swore so acrimoniously, that Morgan was inclined to fling him out of the window, too, through that opened casement. The valet swore after his master, as Pendennis went down the street on his way to the club. Bays's was not at all pleasent. The house had been new- painted, and smelt of varnish and turpentine, and a lare streak of white paint inHitled itself on the back of the old bey's fur-collared stirtout. The dinner was not good and the three most odious men in all London-old Hawk- sliaw, whose cough and accompaniments are fit to make any man uncomfortable old Colonel Gripley, who seizes on all the newspapers; and that irreclaimable old bore Jawkins, who would come and dine at the next table to Pendennis, and describe to him every inn-bill which he had paid in his foreign tour: each and all of these disagree- able personages and incidents had contrabuted to make Major Pendennis miserable; and the Club waiter trod on his toe as he brought him his coffee. Never alone appear the Immortals. The Furies always hunt in company; they pursued Pendennis from home to the Club, and from theCtubhome. Old Pendennis returned from the Club, and went up stairs to his rooms. lr. Morgan swore very savagely at him and his bell, when he heard th latter, and finished his tumbler of brandy before he went up to answer the summons. lie received the abuse COJl8C(¡Uent on this delay in silence, nor did the Major condescend to read in tlie flushed face and glaring eyes of the man, the anger under which he was labouring. The old gentleman's foot- bath was at the fire his gown and slippers awating him there. Morgan knelt down to take his boots off with due subordination: and as the Major abused him from above, kept up a growl of maledictions below at his feet. Thus, when Pendennis was crying Confound you, sir; mind that strap—curse you, don't wrench my foot off." Morgan soto voce below was expressing a wish to strangle him, drown him, and punch his head off. The boots removed, it became necessary to divest Mr. Pendennis of his coat and for this purpose the valet had necessarily to approach very near to his employer so near that Pendennis could not but perceive what Mr. Morgan's late occupation had been; to which he adverted in that simple and forcible phraseology which men are sometimes in the habit of using to their domestics; informing Morgan that he was a drunken beast, and that he smelt of brandy. At this the man broke out, losing patience, and flinging up all subor- (iiiiatiori "I'm drunk, am II I'm a beast, am I l'iii d-d, am It you infernal old miscreant. Shall I wring your old head ofï, and drownd yer in that pail of water? Do you think I'm a-g,)in' to bear your confounded old harrogancc, you old Wig. by Chatter your old hivories at me, do you, you grinning old baboon 1 Come on if you arc a lIIan and canstawl t< a man, IIa! you coward, knhes, knives If you advance a step, I'll send it into you," said the Major, seziiig up a knife that was Ol the tab I: near him. "Go downstairs, you drunken brute, and leave the house send for your book and your wages, in the morning, and never letme see your insolent face again. This d-d impertinence has been growing for some months past. You have been growing t o rich. Yon are not fit for service. Get out of it, and out of the house."—"And where would you wish me to go, pray, out of the ouse 1" a:ked the man, "and won't it be equal convenient to- morrow mornin'?—tootjifay mums shose, sivvaplay, mtin- seer lit —"Silence, you beast, and go!" cried out the Major.—Morgan began to laugh, with rather a sinister laugh. Look yere, Pendeniiis," lie said, seating himself; "since I've been in this room you've called me beast, brute, dog and d- d me, haven't you ? How do you suppose one man likes that sort of talk from another ? How many years have I waited on you, and how mn)1 damns and curses have you given me, along with my wages Do )'ou think a man', a dog, that )OU can talk '0 him in this way? If I choosc to drink a little, why shouldn't 11 I've seen many a gentleman drunk formerly, 81111 pernps have the abit from them. I arnt' agoin' to leave this house, old feller, and shall I tell you for why The house is my house, every stick of fumitur' in it is mine, excep' your old trap, and ,our shower-bath, and )our wig-box. I've bought the place, I tell yon, with my own ;ft'an;e' 'Icanshowahundrcd pound, where you can show a ti.'ty, or your damned supcrsellious nephew either. I've served you honourable, done every- thing for you this dozen years, and I'm a (log, am I I I'm a beast, am 11 Tliit's the language for gentlemen, not f,ir our rank. But I'll bear it no more. I'll throw up your service I'm tired on it I've combed your old wig and buckled your old girths and waistbands long enough, I tell you. Don't look savage at me, 1111 sitting in my own chair, in my own room, a-telling the truth to you. I 11 be your beast, and your brute, and your dog, no more Major Pendennis Alf Pay." The fury of the old gentleman, met by the servants abrupt revolt, had been shocked and cooled by the con- cussion, as much as if a sudden shower-bath or a pail of cold water had been flung upon him. That cfFect pro- duced, and his anger calmed, Morgan's speech had inter- ested him, and he rather respected his adversary, and his courage in facing him, as of old days, in the fencing-room, he would have admired the opponent who hit him "Y'ou'rc no longer my sen-ant," the Major said, "and the house may be yours; but the lodgings are mine, and you will have the goodness to leave them. To-morrow morning, wlien we have our accounts, I shall remove into other quarters. In the meantime, I desire to go to bed, and have not the slightest wish for your further company." We'll have a settlement, don't you be afraid," Morgan said, getting up from his chair. "I ain't done with you yet; nor with your family, nor with the ('layering family, Major Pendennis; and that you shall know." He sate and mused by his hreside, over the past events, and the confounded impudence and ingratitude of servants; and thought how he should get a ne-v man how devilish unpleasant it was for a man of his age, and with his habits, to part with a fellow to whom he had IHcn accus- tomed how Morgan had a receipt for boot-varnish, which was incomparably better and more comlortablc to the feet than any lie had ever tried; how very well he made mutton broth, and tended him when lie was unwell. Gad it's a hard thing to lose a fellow of that sort: but he must go," thought the Major. He has grown rich, and impudent since lie has grown rich. lie was honibly tipsy and abusive to-night. We must part, and I must go out of the lodgings. Dalllmy, I like the lodgings; I'm used to 'em. It's very unpleasant, at m) time of life, to change my quarters." And so on, mused the old gentleman. The shower-bath had done him good; the tcstiness was gone the loss of the umbrella, the smell of paint at the club, were forgotten under the superior ex- citement. Confound the insolent villain!" thought the old gentleman. He understood my wants to a nicety: he was the best servant in England." He thought about his servant as a man thinks of a horse that has carried him long and well, and that has come down with him, and is s?fc no )onger. How the deuce to "place him 1 Where can he get such another aiiimal ?
SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE. PORT PENRHY, BAGOR.-Arri\'ed, I ?' '??? Hob-head Trader, Davies; !Ianict, Jones Amethpt, Leatham Mary, Sloan Ann & Sarah, Hughes A.i??th Parry; Wardlow, Templeton; lalacrc, OweM; John, Pugh; Stag, Hughc.i Temple, Jones; Ellens, Griffith and Margaret Ann, Griffiths. Cleared out, the Charlotte, Williams; Rose, Irving Rechab, lUehards; Raven, Owens; Indefatigable, "ïlliams; Anu & Catherine, Williams; Lord Exmouth, Hughes Port Penrhyn, Owens; Vine, Evans; and the Highland Chief, Young, all with slates. PORTMADOC, Dec. 19.—Arrrived, the Eagle, Jones; Den Ilcweston, Lloyd Andeona, Richards; J ane, Richards; Gwcn Jones, Jones. Sailed, the '^ovc, Jones; and the ulcan, tnompson. CON WAY, Dec. 19.—Arrived, the George, Gardiner Hopewell, Holland Betsey, Lloyd; York, Thomas Gwydr Castle, Gamctt, Amity, Williams; Alice Anu, Hughes Anne. Owcns ¡ Connoyimn, Parry; John, Hughes; Jane & Catherine, Roberts; George, Evans; 13usy lice, Jones.
SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. ?Ir.'Pars ,ill mcet on Tuesday, D,?. Mth s;. Mile stone, Holyhead road. 'rill'Ild"lyl 2??tli -rititon Arms, Sarntomt. Saturday, 28th •••••"•" ""•dl'rfalS' Kach?yaLtEtevm o'clock. Sir W. NV Wynn's h.L?.?d? ,ill meet on S?,t.rd?v, D". bt, at l eo o'clock "'Y" I
MOLD COR\ MAUKET-WEDNTSIUY. Wheat, 13s 6d barley, lis 5s (j vs .,1; p^ut^ os to os Cd per hobbet.
I MEAT MARKETv NEWGATE AND LEADENHALT.. Thurslav, Decemlvrl' — Beef, from Vs od to as Jd; mutton,"2s 4d to ;s tiJ; veil, 2s 8J to os 6d: pork, 2s Cd to d per Sibs, by the carca<- SOUTH ALL, Dec. 19 —Beef :ro;U os. to 4s. od.; Mut- ton, o>. 2d. to 4s. 2,1. Pork, os. to 3s. 8d. per Slbs to sink the ofi'ds. T!ie market wdl supplied with e.eh kind of lilt stock, in which very little business transacted. 3s. 2d. to 4s. 2d. Veal, 2s. 8d to os. Gd.; Pork, 2$. l"-j to 3s. 8.1 per 3lbs. Suckling Calves los. to 23s.: Quarter-old Store Pigs, Iii., to 20s. each. We have ex- perienccd nn unusually dull trade here this morniCe- HAILSIIAM, Dec. 18.—Beef, froo. 3s Id to l<; mutton. 3s (U to 4s 2i poik, 3s to 3s Od. per olbs to the otiuls. Even the primest stock, tit far Chiistmas consumption, was very dull, and prices unusually low. CHICHESTER, Dec. IS.—I>eef, trom 3s. iM. to 4$.. 2d.; Veal, 3s. 2d. to 3s. (3d. Pwik, 3s. to 3s. 'JU- pec SIbs. The maikc-t was heauy, at drooping pricis.
-I,- THE DENBIGH COUNTY MEETING. To the Editor of the North Wales Chionicle. Sir,—As a subscriber to your excellent paper, I beg to otter a few remarks relative to proceedings at the late Denbigh County Meating, at which ,r was present. I could have wished, sir, that some one in behalf of the clervtv had proposed a vote of thanks to Mr. Ffoulkes for his very truthful and manly speech, against allegations charging them as being chieHy accessory to the Pope's aggression. The resolution containing such a charge expressly stated th.t Trac- tarianism, &c. existed amongst us in this aid the adjoining cliocese. But the latter statement was no sooner uttered, than it was almost immediately niter- wards retracted! Now, what must every impartial person think of the staple of such a resolution ? (Dis- allowed, indeed, as it was by the veto of the High Shcriff, who would not includa it in th copy of the Address to be presented to Her Majesty.) As to the correctness, or otherwise, of the charge of iractariau- ism, &c. with respect to this Diocese, I need but refer you to the testimony of one, at least, competent to judge of such a thing—that of oiir ltiglit Itev. Dio- cesan, who, in his answer to the address of the Bangor Clergy, has expressly stated that those objectionable opinions do not exist in this Diocese. And yet, the tontrary assertion was attempted to be palmed upon the meeting, and upon the Queen, by members of the Church itself, alas! alas! Sir, without stoppin to consider th, morc il/lm- diate and proximate causes that have encouraged the Pope in his attempt to establish his supremacy again in this country, I shall at once go back to the grand and primary cause of all this movement. Whicb, I maintain, to be the fatal bill of 1829. I recollect when that measure, (viz., Roman Catholic Emancipation) was passed, it was said, I believe, by Lord Chancellor Eldon that then the s>m of England wis sct. How true this has proved itself, we have ever since lived to see. By the suu of England I prcsr.me was meant, Protestant ascendancy. That once down, v. hat fol- lowed? P<>pish agp,ui(1izcmnt-popi,h equality. It were well if it would stop there. But no popish aggression—popisli usurpation—and, it not timely checked, Rum:¡¡¡ Ca/ilO!ic asc:'Il:l(lIIcy! It was then, in IS:), the Hood-gates, those barriers of old against the encroaehmellt of ambitious Home, were first opened. Afterwards followed the torrents of conces- sions, never satisfying concessions, under various administrations, 011 after another; until at last the sequel proves to be what was always anticipated by those" intolerant" persons who were opposed to those concessions. And permit me to add, it was then in 1829, that the University of Oxford so gloriously assisted her Pro- testant principles, and kicked out her representative, .Sir liobert for hi, ,¡a:n--rll] tergiversation and inconsistency. And as long as I live, do I fee! proud in having on that occasion, assisted in the triumph hy recording Iny vote against hilu. And now, sir, I shall have done, by expressing a wish that you, or some one else more capable than myself, would take up the subject, and endeavour to set the public aright with respect to the unjust asser- tions cast upon the ministers of the Church in North Wales. For, I am persuaded, that, because these have been passed over too silently, we arc at this moment deprived of the good opinions of too many of (Mir parishioners and oiir congregations proportionably diminished. I have the honour to be, sir, Your obedient servant, Tllos, H COIlES, Clocaenog Rectory, Dec. 13, 1851).
GENERAL AV?AGEFK?S OF BRITISH CORN P 11, u) -1?lill ?1) fl""? the Fo? tl?, weel\. enHlng Vl'C. I\.}' 'I .U'" -L Ueturnsof The Ins^tfrs ..??-' ?'? ?? ?-? in England and Wales, per I??Qr. ￼ ° rij I .9. 5d PRICE.. .tJ t.RL '?? !!3?.j!?l? nk% ??g ? yoREH,N CORN. ￼ tt OATi I KY* B«AW» WHEAT I I, OD ,S 0D I L" 0D I I ￼ Ry,, 60; Be& u,w8 reA' 1,8C8 'lff,
BIRTHS. MARRIAGES. & DEATHS Wo wMi it to bo plaiulv understood tint*4f Births, Deaths, or Marriages received from aw" unlinowntous, win not be inserted in oMr column. transmitted to us through our Kccrditrrl 19cn: deem it necessary to ?d.lt ti,i? eoa -e, in order a ■' as [mssiHe to .I)pr"? a system of imposition, whkn? t too frequently been a souice of vexation ami aunMar' 1. th? pub), IHitTIIS. Htll inst., the wife of Mr. John Morris, Ore: F j street, Cardiff, of a (lautliter. 16th inst., at Wind-sticet, Swansea, the .v 1 rf''r W. Williams. MARRIAGE S. 13th inst.. at the suporinter.'i.ist r. 01];. r heli, Mr. William Jones, Ty'nllao, Ede' vrn to Vii'' j, hcti. Mr. \\it)mm Jones, Ty'MUaa, Ed?m'"tn?-t''?'L!. Williams, of Nlorfa? 13th inst., at St. John's Episcopal ehapd, E(linbur?b Hon. Cliaries- .couci ,u tik. far Dunmorc, and nephew of tho Duke of Ihmi!t v Eli,?l,th W?d?worth, of*,)" Nlr. worth, of Gcncssee, New York. Hth inst at GviBn church, by the ne., M- Prj,.i„ fc EHa?" s'!?f Mr. '?oi!??''?:? D.16I, to Grau, dauj£ ? of Mr. William Roberts, Bryniau, both of t'se above «! of Mr. II ,,¡,am Hoherl-, Br?uau, 'Mthof;?., -°?' ]4t'ii iiist,, It 31" 1 h,z.. WiUnm. to Miss Maria H?..r, 'botii 01 Morriston Hth i.?t., at St. David's church, Liverpool, by the p W. Hughes, Mr. JO?LPII ilu?hc., mariner, to L'I v Jones, Amlwch I th in»t., at Iluabon church, by the Rev. Riciu" a. h curate, Mr. John Lindoss, MM Emma Lea. t?th' m?.,at ?ov?/Mr. ThM?.' i-evor. :J, i?j! fJ:¡;i!f;i:JjJ;¡, Mrs Sophia Jane Jenny, wi 01 ii-c I j "j r Esq., w h o, ith ?'?" ="?"?<' at ?f; Hall, by Kuh 1 Sth iu?t at the ,upcrinten[knt rcgistr .r's o:Hice p?. hdi, Mr. Thomas Roberts, joiM'r,M.jmtt,jL:<inrn/ j, \i, Anne Parry, of Glanrhyd, Ci-idio. DEATHS. nth i.?t., g,d 72, Mr. Etau H.,?it-, l'uY:"yn, r." Llansilin. 11th inst., at the advanced c; of Madura k Grcenhill-strect, Swan,ea, 12tll itist., at Dorkii?z, ill t?? efi4rtv of S?,,rrcv @g,! Thomas, ?,d son of Mr. IlicUmuii 'of l Ca?tle Park, Montgomeryshire. 12th inst., at 8, Dynevor-pLee, Swansea, Mr>. Maw Mahon, aged 72. 13th inst, after a long ilinev. Ilr. Suarrl Ev" m" 1:3tli iust after i loii?- ?r. E, 13th inst., at Ashwell Thorp Park, Norfolk, aged 4?), th H??,. and Rev. 1, ?,t Wilson. 1'Uh mst.. ?t Uu-) H?), !i.r IXrbv, a*. a?-an?i?. of 8.), Lady Scar>dale. She was second wife of th, k, Lord Scarsdale, whom she man ied in lw», aud bv whi she had issue two sons and two dau^htt.rs. 14th inst at the Menai liridsr. in her 2ht year, Emmt, fourth daughter of Mr. Henry l ^hcr. i i tli i:ist., in tliu GOtli ot' a-c' Mrs. Mary Humphreys, Plastudur, Liauacr, re- late Mr. Hobert Humphreys, of tho ;ame p:aeL 14tli iiist., Jane. tlic? wif? of 311. L,,i? Pcnl6n, Pwllheli. 14th inst., aged 63, Harriett, the wife of Mr. John Gror of Camden Cottage. Swamca loth inst., in the ;51.st year, highly respected, David EvaE, Esq., Pwllheli, eldest sou ofthclate Nlr. Evans, of Lhauc:! Llannor. loth inst., at Camden-place, Swansea, aged -5 years aui 7 months, Thoma. Winstone, the only son of Mr. WinsM,, Siiiiiiionds, surgeon. loth iust., aged 52* year;, Gen. the Hon. Sir Willix Lumley, G.C.13, a distinguished eavalrv ^ti:r, and sou the fourth Karl of Scarborough 16th in-t., Elleu, the wife ot Mr. HMI: v Lov;>. V Pwllheli. 19th inst., in this city, in printer, iVondug-strect.
B.YXGOll COtt MARKET, & Friday, Dec. >i. j xne atteuaauce at our m:.nï..d to-cuy was nory gooi; e.: grain samples offered were more than "found purchaM.rs, a: the trade in every description of grain was somewhat of i dull aspect. Although the pr;ces of our last wctk'» fixa- tion were supported, the trausactions were mho: buyers providing only for immediate wants; con* y there will be no alteration in our currency of th> •; WI??,t. b??t I} (i i: 0 Middling and inferior .37 0 yj 0 Harler of fin^ quality t' 0 i 0 Do. grinding o 0 u u Grey peas p?? do 0 u u u Oat.s.J.??? H 0 I: 0 Oatmeal, per 2l 'lbs 0 v ■) Vetches per cibbin 0 I) V II
MOLD MARKET—SATI;IU>.VY, December W These markets hal to-day as usual a good su.y»y 01 very superior meat, but from the very boisterous 'au of tit; weather, there was not a large attendance, '"t't t¡1I,: butchers were not inactive. It is much to be rl.grdt(J that tÍ.I spirited shareholder of these spLudid .k,t halls do n: nrovido «omc I,J" u_ ,J.h"" .l" ",u.,l "lvL, dealers may assemble in thi? inclement season tfe<.f, oi to Gd; mutton, 4d to 5d; veal, tl pork, I i I to od per lb. rabbits, 8d to 9.1 each cod fish, 4d per lb.; soles, 8d per lb; potatoes, 31b for a Id; ducks, -s 0d per couple; fowl, Is 4-J each; fresh butter, lid; salt do., led per lh, onions, H tJ l^d per lb.
LLANGOLLEN* MARKET, J>AU; av TIcef, -3d mutton, 4itl to od per 11). rabbits Vi to J; butter, 10d per ii) alt tÍo" Ud Hour, Is per Mb; geese, ,j! per lb; pork, 4id per (lo.
LIVERPOOL PROVISION* MARKET—TIK>I'Y. W e have had a moderate dennnd for butter, at ab-nu t- .t(?s of thi day ,?k any alteration, hj.vcver, is m t?,,)- of tho buyer. Bacon is in fair reque?t. I j Buttcr,perimb. Landed. LMM. Waterford 7?.to 8?. Baubridge 7:t)? Carrick 7(?s. to 7M. Newsy ?s. t,? <\ Cartow&Kiikcny??.tu7"?U?t?k.?.tot' Wexford. 0.td?.L.trd,bhdd?!KO-. Limerick 71,? to 7i.. kegs Jcfirk. 0>. to ?. Belfast 70s. to 78s. Bacon, ii)n mid. 37s. to J'&. \:I'&èiI'a'i I,:lj, :.tl: J; jg Cork ,e" ns.to ?. Hm. dry ?.t??.
1 LOXDOX HAY MARKETS, Thursday, Dec. VJ. SMITH MEADOW HAY tZ >s to L ); "I"" £ 3 0s to £ 4 0s and Straw, £ 0s to £ l lys per load. Supplv good, and trade dull. WHrri-cii.U'iL. — Meadow Uay. £ G, !) £:; l Clover, £ ';i Os to £ t 2s; and Straw, £ 1 <h to t'l ts ;r load. Trade dull, at latc ralc;
THE I NORTH WALES CIIROSICLE AMI ADVERTISER FOR Tin: l'ltixonwurv, SAITRIUY, Ih:cUI':ER 21, ISV.). Printed and Published by tlio Editor anl Pr)?n<\ £ r Av.rsirs ROHEUT M utri.v, of Holyhead C'.nuzts, 111 TW parish of Bangor, at his General Piiiiting O.ii-v, in street, Bangor, every FRIDAY EYK.VISU, in tiaie for tho early posts, and extensively circulated on each iviturd.ty morning throughout the Principality, and 111 tuglaM. Ireland, "nd Scotland, All Bank, Post-office and ot'ier remit'anre- sUJ-«t n,unieations should be addresedto Ai acsui KOBEU. Subscription in advance Cl Is. 0.1. per annu:n; oner-J. £ 1 as. O?. per annum. ￼ \'?E ?<)?. ?'?-sCt?.?C,EAXpADVHRT.?RF.)". THE PRINCIPALITY may be had ot the to.loHing A?nh ??t?/t.-Mr. Uaao Simon, t-.o??IIcr. Uuthin Mr. Jones 1'o?ma'itcr. Mc?. JoMsand So. St.t..n 11?. T. Owen, Dr?l, Ca.t.e-stuit. Piri tlheli —Mr. Thomas, Booksellei. r iii-i -ii -Mr William Owen, stamp-ofhee. rm tru-Vr. Hughes, grocer, l.'a,l[(lt'eu.-)Ir. Davies, Poviiiistress. 3iold"Ir. P?i-?g, Uook ,cller, K^-MW. Jones Uoobjener. ￼ rain,tl', JJo?kdh::r. II.J/y,rel/lr, )101l'1S, ?Louk?t.cr. t, ,-t,lp"-1\Ii:'õ S(}l\)., lJook:'LltC'r, x ;? < -Mr Shone, Bookseller, ?Mi Br?f-Mr. Fisher, B?ok?Ucr. Bangor Railway Station.-Messrs. Smith. ?)?'<< ?.?'?'y Station. -?te?n. Smith. ?.??.Mr.M.Louis, Hook?Uer. H/?f.—MrW.L. Sharp, Publisher. Orders for this Paper received in London, by Mr. H. Barker, 33, F leet..treet; Mr. Geore RevucU, H.MMM Ad?rtisiugOtticc, 32, Chancery La.?; Mc?M. !te?M* and Co., 2, Warwick squarc; Nir. Charles Barker, U, Birchin Lane; Samuel Deacon, 3, Walbrook; C'. E, Mitchell, Red Lion Court, Fleet-street aud W. u'¡)1. Hammond, 27, Lombard street.