The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-28 00:00:00

tranquillity. The legal opinions enunciated will
give additional courage to those inclined to im-
pede the military in the discharge of their impor-
tant duties. We do not question the law laid
down by Mr. Justice NRRIN. The great expe-
rience, acknowledged learning, and unblemished
integrity of that learned Judge, confer high
authority on his dicta. It was his busi-
ness not to make the law, but to ex-
pound it, and any inconveniences that may
arise are to be attributed to the law itself, and
not to its conscientious interpreter. That law
may be absurd, it may toss the soldier on the
horns of a very unpleasant dilemma, placing his
military and civil duties in direct collision. But
all these, although not merely justifying, but
imperatively demanding new legislation, consti-
tute no sufficient grounds for censuring the pre-
siding Judge, who conscientiously discharged his
duty, interpreting the law as it is, not as his
critics may imagine it ought to be.

But why, we again ask, did not the !Attorney-
General exercise his undoubted prerogative of
entering a:nolle prosequi on the indictment ? Why
make all the unnecessary and uncalled for parade
of a serious prosecution, when, from the deposi-
tions, he must have known that there could not
by any possibility have been a conviction. As
well might there have been a prosecution of Lord
JOHN RUSSELL on the Coroner's inquisition which
declared him guilty of the wilful murder of an
unfortunate person who, in the famine of 1847,
died of destitution. There would have been as
much chance of an adverse verdict of one case as
in the other. And what would now be said
if the Leader of the House of Commons was
called upon to find bail to abide his trial at Castle-
bar, and compelled to retain counsel specially
for his defence. And yet such a proceeding
would be as fully warranted as that which has just
taken place ! We do not, for a moment, sup-
pose that the Right Hon. functionary could have
been actuated by any sordid motive. We would
not do Mr. BREWSTER the gross injustice of ima-
gining for a single moment the possibility of such
an occurrence. But there must have been some-
thing, and what was it ? Could it have been any-
thing in the shape of the Compromise that was so
earnestly repudiated ? Could it have been as the
only way of obtaining an adequate excuse for the
non-prosecution of Messrs. BURKE and CLUNE, of
casting a shield over these Reverend Gentlemen ?
We leave our readers to draw their own conclusions.
The Attorney-General declared that their conduct
was perhaps (! ! !) criminal, but most certair4
reprehensible ; but he thought it indelicate to send
bills before the Grand Jury against persons who
had been produced as witnesses before them. The
prosecution of the soldiers, then, averted the pro-
secution of the priests. They were saved from
annoyance, but at a heavy expense to the country
as well as to Mr. DELMERGE and to those who
provided the funds for the defence of the soldiers.
One result must, however, follow. Legal Refor-
mers must direct their attention to the subject, so
as to prevent at all future times the impolitic
conflict between the military and the civil law.

Po-
pishfs
ot rr Ti
cehtvei
eo rnS.
beggary,Pt 0o ObNIvEs
Wealthy
av
lhedtsilhesb3!sipttreergmoi
istvoeeOvssyteaedi
Protestantism
swmc
eohns
railing
ote,p
hope removed
roenrmaoet
opvob-
r-
lot
eifsc
su Ip.oarfrottcherisestdasinot
Protestantism,
former.tbehoitnhg athte home
better.
Fteeorar. tdh ea
Irishbr
reopapudto,aptei
theer
yn
f
bwuats ,
sometimesn o do u bt, Ni-teriys
veryill
-behaved-dedtaotknthoew how
lastelemetiuocnh,
of it is simply Irish, and how much Popery; shil-
lelahs and broken heads being always Irish, and
Irish Protestants not being altogether lambs and
doves. And also, as Sir J. YOUNG remarked,
there were unusual excitements at the last elec-
tion. The Durham Letter, the Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill, the Proclamation against Processions,
and the Stockport Riots, had heated priestly ire
seven times hotter than usual, and some allowance
must be made for it. Mr. SPOONER went to work
quite philosophically. He first arranged a large
assortment of facts proving one great conclusion,
the wrath of the priests, and the bitterness of
their denunciations. He next sought amongst
the vercc causce, and found the true cause in a
compound of St. THOMAS AQUINAS, Cardinal BEL-
LARMINE, and the Bull in Coen Domini. Mr.
DUFFY, however, follows, and affirms that the
newspapers quoted are all calumniators of Catho-
lics, the facts calumnies, and that they were not
denied because no one deemed such journals worth
contradicting.
As to the SPOONER mode of interpreting May-
nooth class-books, Mr. DUFFY and Mr. LUCAS
agree that Protestants know nothing about it, and
that such far-fetched arguments are unworthy of
an answer. Now it must be owned that the whole
class of Spoonerites are grievously inconsistent on
the oath business. Mr. S. laboured most strenu-
ously to prove that Catholic oaths of allegiance are
not held binding by them in regard to excommu-
nicated princes ; that Protestant princes are ex-
communicated—therefore, &C., Q. E. D., the logic
is perfect. Yet Mr. SPOONER reminded Roman
Catholic members of their oath not to hurt the
Irish Church, at the very outset of his speech !
reminds them first of their oath, and then labours
to prove that their oath does not bind them !
Moreover, all the Spoonerites throughout Great
Britain and Ireland are vehement advocates of
swearing the Catholics as deeply as the House of
Commons will let them. If the POPE can absolve
from an oath, Mr. SPOONER can at least hold
himself absolved from consistency and common
sense.

But if these teachings, and bulls, and canons are
now obsolete, why not do away with them ? Mr.
SPOONER had better not ask that question. He
did not go beyond Rugby. Had he ventured to
Oxford, he would have found oaths deliberately
sworn to there with the full knowledge that they
will not and cannot be kept. He will find also,
on inquiry, that the Canons of his own Church de-
clare every impugner of the Prayer-book ipso facto
excommunicate until he abjure his wicked and
damnable errors. Of course, his respected neigh-
bour, the Rev. ANGELL JAMES, and all Dissenters
with him, are in Mr. SPOONER'S view excom-
municate ; and, as ForETErR hath it, " consigned
to the uncovenanted mercies of GOD." Ho will
find, too, that Lord LYNDHURST dared not, through
fear of the Bishops, repeal !:,a, whole batch of the
persecuting statutes of his own Church, but only
the penalties thereof, leaving offenders against
them still open- to prosecution for a misdemeanour.
We assuredly plead not for the persecuting canons
and bulls of Popery—:only there is an old proverb
we could not forget anent those who live in glass
houses. Sir J. YOUNG, on the part of the present
Government, and Lord STANLEY, on the part of
the late one, both opposed • the motion ; Sir J.
YOUNG, at some length, citing -ample authorities,
alleging that Catholics contributed nearly one-
tenth of our revenue—that the 30,0001., there-
fore, was but an acknowledgment of that fact, and
representing Mr. SPOONER as a Protestant Grand
Duke of TUSCANY, only wanting the power to im-
prison and to banish Catholics. Mr. SCHOLZ-
FIELD moved his amendment in a short but able
speech, objecting to the Acts which endowed May-
nooth. He did so on no merely sectarian grouris.
Although a member of the Church of EnglP,:nd, he
equally objected to Acts of a similar kind which
gave endowments to that and other Protestant
Churches ; he specified several—Cie for the Esta-
blishment in Jamaica, amountivAg to 20,300/. an-
nually, and others, amounting; altogether to upwards
of 40, 000/., besides several, minor, but equally ob-
jectionable grants. He demanded the support of all
advocates of religious equality for his amendment,
as, by abolishing all f3tate grants, it dealt equally by
all. He justly denounced Mr. SPOONER'S one-sided
care for Protestan.t consciences, while he evinced

no concern for Roman Catholic consciences, which

must be quite a s burdened by being taxed for
Protestant granf;s, as those of Protestants by taxa-
tion for Mayno oth. It will hardly have escaped
the notice of 'those who have waded through the

debate, that extreme views on the subject of State

endowments F.re gaining ground in the House.

Mr. FREDERI CK PAL, in his speech on the Clergy

Reserves, pr etty plainly intimated that it was for
the Church in the Colonies to rely on the charac-
ter of its octrines and its ministers for its future

success, Mr. ScHour/ma) represented the special,