At a Meeting held in BRISTOL, in the HORTICULTURAL ROOMS, on Wednesday, November 26, 1834.

Alderman DANIEL in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN-Gentlemen-I wish I could, in suitable terms -and they would not be unsuitable if they adequately represented my feelings-speak my sense of the favours we have received since we appeared in this country on behalf of the persecuted Protestants of Ireland.

Had we listened with credulity to the discouragements addressed to us, we should not have undertaken a task which was represented hopeless. It was said by our enemies, England will not add to her embarrassments by protecting the church in Ireland; she will feel danger near enough to her own, and will not augment it by undertaking a cause in which she does not feel a lively interest. Representations of this character did not dishearten us. England, we said, has already made her election. She has incorporated the Irish church with her own. A compact has been made: Ireland surrendered legislative independence - England promised powerful and benevolent protection; and, even if the difficulties which demand her succour were greater than they are, we firmly believe that the English are not a people who will revoke a promise, and violate an engagement, because the keeping it is attended with inconvenience. On the faith of this assurance we obeyed the wishes of the Protestants of Ireland that we should lay their case before you. That we should be received with good will we were confident; but our most sanguine expectations have been surpassed by the warmth of your fraternal and encouraging reception. Henceforth, per

haps, the enemies of Protestanism in Ireland may be more chary of predictions that you will disregard your engagements.

They seem now to have transfused their spirit into adversaries who are here, and who describe my Rev. friend and myself as persons who are guilty of some heinous offence in coming to solicit your support. I can with perfect sincerity affirm, that to him, as well as to myself, the thought of appealing to you in the manner we have been deputed to do, was one to which wesubmitted only from a sense of constraining necessity. Far more acceptable to me it would have been to remain engaged in the occupations and studies in which, for many years, I have found happiness; but when it became a very doubtful question whether the Protestant church in Ireland would be permitted longer to exist, there seemed to remain no excuse for refusing to undertake any lawful duty by which protection might be provided for it. We, therefore, submitted to the wishes of our persecuted brethren, and the reception with which you have favored our appeal on their behalf, encourages us to hope that it will not be unsuccessful.

And here I consider it expedient to premise an important fact, namely that the statement of their grievances which the Protestants of Ireland have made, or, to be more exact, which have been put forward at their late meetings, remains uncontradicted. I do not, of course, mean to say that we shall, in all the minor details, be found to have stated, with a degree of accuracy which admits of no correction, every circumstance to which we have referred; but I mean to say, that the substantial matter of our complaint does not admit of denial or alteration. We say that there is a conspiracy extensively organized in Ireland, having for its end to extirpate Protestanism, and to separate our country from Great Britain. We say that there cannot be found in the character or conduct of the Irish Protestants or their creed, any thing by which the enormity of this monstrous confederacy could be excused or palliated—and we have proof in the silence and in the personal calumnies of our enemies, that they regard our complaints as subjects of anger and vituperation-but dare not challenge attention to them by hazarding a direct contradiction. I shall continue to repeat this assertion wherever I have opportu

nity, so long as our adversaries remain silent as to the character of our complaints, and are lavish of personal abuse on those who are under the necessity of making them.

May I, in a spirit of, perhaps, over carefulness, explain here a statement of my Rev. friend-that in Ireland there is a congregation of one thousand Protestants for every church. You did not, I am sure, misunderstand the statement; but to prevent all misconception or misrepresentation, I would beg to say, that it contemplated an average on all churches, not the congregation of each. It is to be lamented that there are parts of Ireland in which the Protestants are few, but it is not to be imagined that even in such parts the duties of the clergy are less arduous than in places more favorably circumstanced, or that they are less discreetly or zealously discharged. In such places I could point out many whose houses were the centres from which charitable assistance was distributed widely, and without distinction of creed or party. I could enumerate many individuals whose whole lives were spent in acts of unostentatious piety and benevolence-individuals who left no competent provision for their families-who had provided no resources for the evil day that of late came upon them, not because they had expended their incomes in sumptuous living, but because they had devoted to objects of charity all that exceeded the demands of simple habits-all that was left, after a moderate, and I might say, a frugal expenditure in their homes. I could speak of an individual who, during his life, I would almost venture to affirm, never contracted a debt for himself, who at least was exceedingly careful to avoid debt, and all occasions of it, and who became seriously embarrassed by obligations incurred in his endeavours to mitigate the evils of famine in his neighbourhood. He was more impressed with the sights of misery which met his eye, than careful not to exceed the bounds within which in prudence he should have limited his efforts to afford relief; he was for eight years, I believe, paying by instalments the debts, to him serious, which he had contracted, in his benevolent exertion. I cannot trust myself to speak of the manner in which he was rewarded. Let it not be supposed, that in observations of this character,

I am advancing what I consider arguments against the correction of any abuse which shall be found to exist in the Irish branch of our church establishment. Far be from us the idea, or the imputation. Let every thing be done which can render our church a more efficient minister of truth-everything which can increase her activity, so far as is consistent with her order and permanence -everything which can enlarge her sphere of usefulness. This is what the term reform appears to me to mean; this was the meaning assigned to the term at the time when a reform was called for in the British House of Commons. The measure desired was to render that house more efficient for the great purposes of general amelioration. Is this the character of the reform which is desired for the church? Is it with a view to increase its efficiency reform is called for? Who are they who most clamorously demand it? I learn from the Irish prints that a society has been instituted in Dublin for the purpose of effecting church reform-by whom? By individuals who believe that a man who dies in communion with the chruch of England dies without hope-dies without a title to be saved. Are we to believe that such individuals can entertain the cruel desire to see such a church increased in power -to see its temptations for the perdition of souls rendered more prevailing ? (A)

But some may say, it is not fair to impute to gentlemen connected with the church of Rome the uncharitable opinion, that out of that church salvation cannot be obtained. The liberal spirit of the age has mitigated the bigotry of the church, and softened the uncharitableness of its members. I can only say, that, according to the doctrine of the church of Rome, none can be saved out of her communion-that all who entertain an opinion at variance with this doctrine are not Roman Catholics; and I protest against giving to any men the advantage of challenging respect for their complaints on the pretext that they are bigots, and retaining respect for themselves, or the contradictory assurance that at the same time they are enlightened and liberal men. If Roman Catholics are true to their creed, they believe that a Protestant cannot be saved. Can they desire to increase the efficacy of a Protestant church? If they believe that salvation is not so limited,

they are not Roman Catholics,-and they should determine on the form of Christianity which they themselves please to adopt before they address themselves to the reform of ours. In short, if they are bigots, they cannot desire to see our church improved-if they are liberals, until they have chosen their creed, they should, in common propriety, remember, that they have no concern with our church.

But it is doing injustice to the wisdom of the self-styled church reformers to suppose that their aims with respect to the church were vague or indistinct. Reform is a convenient name. To reform to extinction they hope to find a feasible project. They have read history more profitably than some who defer to their suggestions. The statement which my reverend friend submitted to you they know to be the truth. These statements, you will remember, comprised a view of our church under what may be considered contrasted experiments. They exhibited it during the days when it gave ground for censure; and during the more favoured period when it became the subject of almost universal praise. They also served to show that the season of sorest poverty was that of most general complaint; and that, as the endowments in process of time approached a competent provision, the efficacy of the church was also extorting more general acknowledgments. My friend also showed you, that so long as the charge of inefficiency could justly be advanced against the church-a charge which, we confess, was not altogether unjustifiable from various causes, even when she had obtained a moderate endowment-she was free from all aspersions from our Roman Catholic opponents-as long as she was an inefficient minister in spiritual things, she was left at ease in her possessions; when she became a faithful and powerful dispenser of the truth, those who could not impugn with effect the truth of her doctrines, cried out against her temporal possessions. They know that when she was destitute of provision, she was not efficient in her ministration, and they feel persuaded that if they can reform her back to extreme poverty again, she will not be the formidable enemy of false doctrine which now they find her.

In corroboration of my friend's statement, I beg leave to read