The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-05 00:00:00

RAILWAY BILLS.

The number of railway bills deposited for the
United Kingdom in the present session amounts to
258, of which 190 are for new works. The number
of bills promoted by new companies for railways in
England is 82, and the aggregate length of railway
1,010 miles; for railways in Scotland 3, and the
length of line 13 miles ; and for railways in Ireland
8 bills,and the length of line 94 miles, making toge-
ther 93 bills promoted by new companies for autho-
rity to construct 1,117 miles of railway. The num-
ber of bills for new works promoted by existing
companies is 97, and the aggregate length of the
proposed new lines for England 1,710 miles, for
Scotland 162, and for Ireland 111; total, 1,993 miles.
In addition to the proposed new lines, it is intended
to make 105 miles of deviations from lines sanc-
tioned in former sessions.

Yesterflay two new Committees assembled—the
first, consisting of Mr. Woodd (chairman), Mr. Gur-
don, Mr. Western, Mr. Legh, and Mr. Getty, to con-
sider projects proposed for railway extension in the
south-west of England—viz., Andover and Red-
bridge, London and South-Western, London and
South- Western and Andover and Redbridge, Isle of
Purbeck, Seaton and Beer, Farnborough and Alder-
Elliott, Southampton and Netley, West Drayton,
Staines, and Wokin g Junction. The first twobills were
taken, that of the Andover and Redbridge for trans-
ferring it to the London and South-Western being
opened by Mr. Phinn, Q.C., and opposed on behalf
of the London and South-Western by Sir F. Slade,
Q.C., and Mr. Wilkinson, who also appeared to
promote the second bill for the London and South-
Western and Andover and Redbridge Railways,
the object being the construction of new lines, to-
gether with the lease of the Andover and Redbridge
line. The committee, after hearing the case, passed
the bill of the London and South-Western, and sub-
sequently settled the clauses.

The other committee, consisting of Mr. Schole-
field (chairman), Mr. Blencowe, Mr. Trefusis, Mr.
Lygon, and Mr. Grenfell, met on the following
measures connected with the Lake District :
Cleveland, Cockermouth, Keswick, and Penrith ;
Cockermouth and Workington ; Furness and Mid-
land ; Kendal and Ulverston ; North Eastern and
Stockton and Darlington ; North Eastern (New-
castle and Starbeck); West Hartlerool ; White-
haven, Cleator, and Egremont; Furness and Bar-
row Harbour Commissioners. The case for the
Cleveland Railway—who seek for an extension of
three years to complete their line and to raise an
additional capital of £7s,ooo—was opened by Mr.
Calvert, Q.C.; Mr. Trevor and other witnesses being
examined by Mr. Price, Q.C., and Mr. Millburn.
Mr. Rodwell, Q.C., sought to establish a locus
stanch in opposition for the Stockton and Darling-
ton Railway, but the committee refused it, and
went on with the practical merits of the measure,
and with the examination of Mr. Bell, the Mayor
of Newcastle. In Mr. Hassard's committee on the
intended extension of the Midland Railway into
London, Mr. Allport, the traffic manager, and Mr.
W. H. Barlow, the engineer of the company, were
under examination all day relative to the commer-
cial necessity and constructive features of the line.

!DR KENEALY'S "NEW PANTOMIME."

Yesterday Mr. Ju 11 Pickles Whitely, proprietor,
...
and Mr. Peter Payne, par, Propri
etor
e and editor
d before Alder-
of the Weekly _Review, were suranath—
man Phillips, sitting in the Guildhall pt._
,kice-courted'
for unlawfully' publishing a certain false, wit,-
and defamatory libel concerning Edward Kenealy,
LL.D., barrister, the oithor of a work called A
New Pantomime.
Mr. Robinson conducted the defence.
Mr. Metcalfe said he was instructed on behalf of
Dr. Kenealf to place before the Court one of the
grossest libels that had ever come under his notice.
Dr. Kenealy had written many years ago a I
book, entitled " A New Pantomime," which had
been read and approved by the great majority of
the public. There were of course a variety of tastes,
and to some parts of the book might appear objec-
tionable; but, as a whole, it had been favourably
received. While admitting the right of fair criti-
cism, he submitted that it did not extend so far as
to allow the critic to hold up the writer of the book
in his personal and private capacity to public con-
tempt. The question was that of libel. Were the
remarks contained in the article published by the
defendants those of ordinary criticism, or had the
writer travelled out of his province to make a gross,
personal, and vulgar attack on the writer of the work
he criticised ? He would call attention to the head-
ing of the article—"Kenealy's Outrage on Public
Decency." Surely this of itself was calculated to
bring an author into public contempt. After expa-
tiating upon the desire for fame and notoriety, the
writer of the article went on to say that "there are
creatures in the animal world which make them-
selves felt by the noisomeness of their presence, and
in these we find the precise type of those men who,
conscious of their impotence to wing their way into
the heaven of true fame, attract notice by drawing
'upon themselves the anger and execration of man-
kind." It was very libellous to say of any man that
he had drawn upon himself the anger and execra-
tion of mankind. Again, " Never in the course of our
experience have we seen these remarks so pointedly
and painfully illustrated as they have just been by
Edward Vaughan-Kenealy, LL.D., in the obscene,
infamous, and revolting poem which he has flung
before his countrymen with the title of " A New
Pantomime." That was very strong language—in-

deed, almost exposing the pu- blisherio an indictment
for libel; but he did not see that even that could be
complained of in this shape—" It is the most auda
cious experiment which has been made since the
appearance of ' Don Juan' on the moral endurance

of the British public." He supposed the writer ob-
jected to "Don Juan," yet many, even ladies, read
the work in private, although, perhaps, they might
not admit the fact. The critic then proceeded to say
that "with the author of Don Juan' Mr. Kenealy
has indeed nocommunity of genius." That was only
fair criticism ; but not so what followed—" Kenealy
does not intend to add witchery to vice, but from
innate and unmitigated_coarseness of mind ho fails
to distinguish between the pure and the foul, be-
tween the becoming and the gross. He wallows in
the mire as in his native element. It was Steele,
we think, who said that a man's style corresponds
to his character. If the style of Kenealy corre-
sponds to his character, we should not like to be
condemned to an hour of his conversation. The

book reflects not only an ill-regulated, but a pol-
luted mind." The next passage of the article he
intended to quote he would call particular attention
to :—" We should say that he is a man to lash little

boys till they stagier and fall down, or to eclipse
the fame of that murderous pedagogue, Mr. Hopley,
by putting them to death with slow torture." The
magistrate would perhaps remember that Hopley
was a person who had a school at Eastbourne about
two years ago, and flogged a boy so severely that
his victim died. Hopley himself was tried and
convicted. The assertion, therefore, was that Mr.
Kenealy was a man to eclipse Hopley by putting
boys to death by slow torture. With regard to the
dedication of the poem to the Right Hon. B. Dis-
raeli the article remarked, "We sincerely trust that
he (Mr. Disraeli) will be able to clear himself of
all participation in so gross an outrage on public
decency as is involved in the issue of such a poem."
He might say that the work on its earlier produc-
tion some years ago attracted so much the atten-
tion of literary men that Longfellow had since pro-
duced a parody of the same poem.
Mr. Robinson said the comparison of Longfellow's
poem with the book in question was raising Dr.
Kenealy's work to a higher position than it merited.
Mr. Metcalfe said the parody was so close that it
was evident that Longfellow had read the " New
Pantomime." In the recent action against the
Saturday Review it was laid down that fair criti-
cism upon a work before the public was privileged,
but the concluding passages of the article complained
of not only did not come within the meaning of fair
criticism, but was calculated to lead to a breach of
the peace :—" For our own part, we have considered
it to be our bounden duty, in speaking of the 'New
Pantomime,' to abandon the tone of literary
criticism, and to assume that which befits the
denunciation of a gross social outrage. Kenealy
wants notoriety, and he will have it ; but let it be
that of the whipping-block and of the pillory." The
question he would ask was, was not that article a
gross libel, and did it not expose Dr. Kenealy to
public contempt?
Mr. Robinson here suggested that Mr. Whitely,
who was wholly innocent of the matter, should not
be made a party to these proceedings, and intimated
a desire on the part of both defendants to apologise
for any remarks in the article which were considered
personal to Dr. Kenealy.
Mr. Metcalfe said Mr. Whitely had written a letter
adopting the libellous article, in conjunction with
his co-proprietor, and he could not therefore see how
he could withdraw the complaint against him. At
the same time, if the defendants would apologise
and retract the offensive portions of the critique,
Dr. Kenealy would be satisfied.
Mr. Robinson said his clients were not prepared
to retract a single word of the criticism on the book
itself, and the case must therefore proceed.
Mr. Metcalfe said the writer of the article con-
fessed that he had travelled out of the realms of
ordinary criticism, and any one who read the follow-
ing paragraph would admit such was the fact:—
"That is quite in Dr. Kenealy's manner. In an
equally playful vein he describes the torments to
which, according to him, Charles I. is condemned.
We are not admirers of Charles, but it would be
difficult to persuade us that the man who wrote
those horrible lines about him has not in his heart
some of the darkest elements of the villain." These
were the material portions upon which the alle-
gations of libel were founded, and he therefore
asked the magistrate to send the case for trial be-
fore another tribunal.
Mr. Joseph Lawrence, the printer of the Weekly ,
Review, was then called to prove the publication of
the paper which contained the alleged libel.
Mr. Robinson said he agreed to a very great extent
with all Mr. Metcalfe had stated. No man had a
right to travel out of his course toipake attacks on
individuals simply because the might have
written books obnoxious to himself or to the
public ; but he held, on the authority of Lord
Ellenborough that all criticisms upon the works of
authors were privileged, and that that privilege
could only be destroyed on malice being proved. But
was there any proof of malice in this case ? Dr.
Kenealy sent his book to be reviewed. He sought
for a fair criticism, and if by a man's book one felt
himself bound to call the author a villain, there
could be very little doubt one would be justified in
doing so. A man who recommended assassination
might be stigmatised by a journalist as a murderer
in 1118 heart, or any one advocating indiscriminate
intercourse tetween the sexes might be described in
equally plain terms, without travelling out of the
province of a critic. The poem—" The New Pan-
tomime"—was without doubt a mass of the
grossest obscenity, impurity, and folly. He had
known Dr. Kenealy for some years and respected
him very much, but he must say, after wallowing
through all the filth of that book, that Dr. Kenealy
ought to be sent front the court with all the obloquy
which his work merited. The French, it had been
said, dressed up such works so that the objection-
able parts were not forced upon the eye, bur. in the
present instance it was not so. He (Mr. Robinson)
was about to ask the magistrate to dismiss the com-
plaint, and he therefore proposed reading portions
of the book to show that every line of the critique
was perfectly justified. There were 140 pages of
the book describing the " Abyss of Hell," wherein
Dr. Kenealy, without any ground for personal
pique. but with petty spite, speaks of many person-
ages, reflecting on individuals even now alive. He
contended that proof of malice was necessary where
the libel alleged was the criticism of a work before
the public. He said if he had accused a stranger
of a robbery he did not commit, there would be no
malice, but it would be libellous, and he would
have to answer it ; but if a man were a public nui-
sance, he should be justified in stigmatising him as
such. With regard to the allegation of blasphemy,
he would read extracts in justification. Kings were
fair game, but they were entitled to be fairly spoken
of. Kings and Queens, however, were spoken of in
that book in the most filthy terms. The learned
counsel then referred to various passages descrip
tive of Joshua and David, and other Scriptural
personages, as denizens of the great Abyss ' • Henry
VIII., Queen Elizabeth, and Lady Mary Wortley
Montague were spoken of in similar terms, the at-
tack on the last being a scandalous and abominable
lie.

Mr. Metcalfe said the same insinuation was to be
found in''
Walpole's Letter 2."
Mr. Robinson said if it was in " Walpole's Let-
ters" every one would know it must be a lie, and a
man who could write such a passage as that reflect-
ing on Lady Montague must have a polluted mind.

James I. and Earl Nelson were referred to in the
same brutal manner; but that which was as Ow
racterktie as anything in the book was the passage
reflecting on an author still living, Mr. Peter Cun-
ningham. There was also a passage reflecting On
the present Dr. IVlillman. The learned counsel
counsel quoted various passages which he stigma"
tised as blasphemous, and, on being reminded by
Mr. Metcalfe that it was Mephistopheles who Ives
he said if Dr. Kenealy chose to introduce
per it would not justify him in allot-
sapberaoktihnegi.ikee;
e the
. whole arcana of her den is
tioantlg43llFscal.gle.:2. Ze would ask any one in court
ihnegr ownLet'
if the defendants watild hi2ve done their duty to the
public had they not denounced the book ? Would
they r.ot have been guilty of a violation of ever,'
principle of duty, of morality, end religion, if they
had failed to do so ? _

Alderman Phillips said he thought the charge
was against the publishers of the paper for the pub-
lication of a scandalous and defamatory lib,ll. The
charge was very clearly stated, and the artici,e itself
charged Dr. Kenealy with having an innate and
unmitigated coarse mind, that dirt was his natiTo
element, and that the book itself reflected not only'
an iil,regulated but a polluted mind. It also charged
him with being a villain, and in another part it said
he was a man to lash little boys until they staggered
and fell down, and that he was a man to eclipse Mr.
Hopley by putting them to death by slow torture.
But the climax of the article was exceeding/;
clear. Because the reviewer stated that, for hig
own part, be considered it to be his bounden duty
to abandon the tone a literary criticism and
to assume that which befitted a gross social
outrage. He wished to be clearly understood.
With regard to the merits or demerits of the work
in question, that was a matter which was clearly
out of his province. There could be no doubt We
all loved the licence and the liberty of the press,
but it must be confined within its proper limits. It
did appear to him that the language used in that
article was beyond that of ordinary criticism, and
he must therefore decline to take upon himself the
responsibility of deciding this case, but must send
it elsewhere.
The defendants were then committed for trial, and
entered into their own recognissnces to appear.

MARKETS.