The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-03 00:00:00

PUSEYISM.

The Bishops have become alarmed at the ex-
citement caused in the public mind by the great
progress of the new Popery sect, and have re-
solved to hush up business for the present. The
attempt to bring back the English people to the
bosom of old Mother Church is -preniatnre, but
from the tardy notice of the Popish tracts,. in
the mildness with which the Bishops treat them,
it is evident that they only bide their time. The
following is the .letter of the Rev. Mr. Newman
to the Bishop of Oxford on -the subject, an-
nouncing his determination to discontinue the
Tracts :

" ISly dear Lord—lt may seem strange that, on receipt
of a message from your Lordship, I should proceed at once,
instead of silently obeying it, to put on paper some se-
marks of my own on the subject of it; yet, as you kindly
ermit me to take such a course, Kith the expectation
that 1 may thereby succeed in explaining to yourself and
others my own feelings and interhions in the occurrence
which has given rise to your Lordship's interference, I
trust to your Lordship's indulgence to pardon me any dis-
cursiteness in my style of writing, or appearance of fami-
liarity, or prominent introduction of myself, which may be
incidental to the attempt.
" Vour Lordship's message is as follows :—That your
Lordship considers that the tract No. 90, in the series
called the Tracts for the Times, is objectionable, and
may tend to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the
Church,' and that it is your Lordship's advice that the
Tracts for the Times should be discontinued.'
" Your Lordship has, I trust, long known quite enough
of my feelings towards any such expression of your Lord-
ship's wishes to be sure I should at once obey it, though it
wee ever so painful to me, or contrary to the course I
should have taken if left to myself; and I do most readily
and che,rfully obey you in this instance; and at the same
time express my great sorrow that any writing of mine
should be judged objectionable by your Lordship, and of a
disturbing tendency, and my hope that in. what I write in
future I shall be more successful in approving myself to
your Lordship.
" I have reminded your Lordship of my willingness on a
former occasion to submit myself to any wishes of your
Lordship, had you thought it advisable at.the time to sig-
nifs them. la your Lordship's charge in 1838 an allusion
was made t 3 the Tracts for the Times. Some oppo-
nents of the tracts said that your Lordship treated them
with undue indulgence. I will not imply that your Lord-
ship can act otherwise than indulgently to any one, but cer-
tainly I did feel at the time, that in the midst of the kind-
ness you showed to me personally, you were exercising an
anxious vigilance over my publication, which reminded
me of my responsibility to sour Lordship. I wrote to
the Archdeacon on the subject, submitting the tracts en-
tirely to your Lordship's disposal. What I thought about
your charge will appear from the words I then used to him.
I said, A tishop's tightest word ex cathedra is heavy. His
judgment on a book cannot be light. It is a rare occur.
rence.' And I offered to withdraw any of the tracts over
which I had control, if I were informed which were these
to which your Lordship had objections. I afterwards
wrote to your Lordship to this effect : that I trusted I
might say sincerely, that I should feel a more lively plea-
sure in knowing that I vas submitting myself to your
Lordship's expressed judgment in a matter of that kind
than I could have even in the widest circulation of the
volanies in question.' Your Lordship did not think it
necessary to proceed to such a measure, but I felt, and al-
ways hate felt, that, if ever you determined on it, I was
bound to obey.

" Accordingly on the late occasion,directly I beard that
you bad expressed an unfavourable opinion of tract 90, I
'gain place) myself at your disposal, and now realily
sufantit to the course on which your Lordship has finally
decided in consequence of it. I stn guile sute in so cluing
lain not only tultilting a duty I owe to your Lordship, but
consulting for the well-being of the Church, and benefit-
ing ntyself.
And now, in proceeding to make some explanations
in addition, which yonr Lordship desires of me, I hope I
shall not t ay a word which w ill seem like introducing discus-
sion before your Lordship. It would ill became me to be
stating private views of my own, and de fending them, on an
occasion I:ke ;his. If I allude to wh.:t has been maintained
in the it wig not be at all by way of maintaining it
in these pages, but in illustration of the impressions sod
the drift with whiah tl.ey have bees written. I need
scarcely say they I.re thought by many to betray a batting
towards Romaa Catholic error, acid a deficient appreciation
of our own truth ; and your Lordship wishes me to show
that these applehensions hate no foundation in fact. This
I propose to do, and twat by exti acts from what I have
befote now written on the subject, which, while they can
be open to no suspicion cf having been provided to se. ve
an occasion, wit!, by being now cited, be inaie a aecand
time my own."
4',„* The pamphlet alluded to in the last paragraph of
this pi eface contains about 50 pages.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Sir—lt should Lever be forgotten in the consideration of
that system of mongrel Popery, called Puseyism, born and
crad!e at Oxford (the supposed nursery Lf true Protes-
tantism;, that its leading feature is, pretension to unlimited
ecclesiastical authority.
. .

In this point of view especially, tLe Oxford Popery can-
not be too Emily exposed, or too strongly condemned, by
every friend of dill and religious liberty of ul atever sect
he may 13;.
Tlipt very c'evcr and keen observer cf human nature,
Voltaire, in his description cf the English clergy nearly a
century ago, made the following observations on them,
which api e,r to me to apply with peculiar force to the Pu-
re:, he members of that body, at the present tier, and which
I cornet forbear from dieting to the notice of your readers,
if you will 'nave the kindness to insert them in your co-
lumns. These are his words :

" Le clergy Anglican a retenu beaucoup de ceremonies
Cathoiiqus, c t surtout colic de recevoir les dimes avec
uneattcntron ties scrupuleuse. Its oat aussi la pieuse
ambition d'etre lei rucitres : car queue vie-sire de village
ne voudrait pas esre Pepe ?
". Do plus :Is rumen:era autant qu'ils peuvent dans !curs
(medics un saint zee contre les noneonforn.istes.
" Oa y promet d'etre de l'Eg'ise, comme vile est e.g_
blie par la 1,1. y a guere d'eveque, de doyen, Ward:li-
p e'.re, qui ne I.enEe etie do droit divin : c'est done un
grand sujet de mortification pour cux d'etre
d'avouer qu' its tiennent tout d'une inii6rable let fai.e par
des profanes laiques."
TRANSLATION,--" The English clergy has retained
many Catholic ceremonies, and especially that of receiving
the tithes with a very scrupulous attention. They have
also the pious ambition of being the masters; for what
village vicar would net wish to be Pope?
" Moreover, they foment as much as they can in their
flocke, a buly seal against the non-conformist.
" They profess to one their existence to the Church as it
is established by the law. There is scarcely a bishop, Bean,
or archdeacon, who does not think that he exists by Divino
right; it is then a great subject of mortification for thorn
to be obliged to confess that they derive all power from a
miEe:atde law made by profane laymen."
The above picture, though brief, is so life-like., that it
will be recognised rt once as a true sketch of the 'Messrs.
Pusey and Co., and will almost prove the philosopher of
Ferney to have been endowed with the prophetic spirit, as
well as with that deep philosophy which enabled him to
see through systems, and to appreciate their effect upon
the human clura:ter, whether in the clerical, or any other
forte.
Ills remarks, too, are applicable to that under-current
of clerical influence always in action, and which has, most
probably, received a fresh impulse from Pusey ism, and will
still be continued, although the open avowal and advocecy
of these principles may, for atime be suppressed.
Adrririrg year own exertions in the exposure of the
aforesaid system,
I bog to subscribe myself, Sir,
ONE OF THE PROFANE LAITY."

March 31.

...-
clergy re
golfl'istiitleionAtisciiindotahoeocooruyrosef
of OXFORD,e, la'ortlounags DtAhle•
Oxford, earnestly requesting the Archdeacon to call a
meeting of the clergy, to afford them an opportunity of
expressing their unqualified disapprobation of the Tract
90. Mr. Newman's letter to the Bishop of Oxford
hasjust appeared, in defence of the Tract. It is
written in a tone of intimacy, and claims his Lordship's
sanction to the publication of the preceding Tracts
No fug the: proceedings are contemplated on the part of
the University.
LEaDs, I\lAl:cti 31.—A very strange scene occurred
her last night. The annual meeting of the Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge was held, the I3ishop
of Ripon in the chair. Dr. Hook, in moving the first
resolution, opened a perfect battery of wrath on the
hto Pastoral Aid meeting. He talked of the neces-
sity of icing resolute; " he had nailed his co_
• and blow high, blow
lours to the mast ,low,
come wind, come storm, he would stand by the
High Church (i. e. Tractarian) party, and defend
its cause." He was proceeding in this strain,
whew the
Bishop rose and called him to order.
A murmur of applause greeted his Lordship's .
inter-
ferenceho said, that as the
; w y were met in harmony
and concord in support of a cause in which all were
be hoped that no reference would
agreed, be made to
Controverted topics.
The Doctor was confounded ; he turne d pale, and
shook with agitation ; then suddenly said, " Thus over-
ruled, I shall content myself by reading' the resolution I
have the honour to
m"''," and eat down
No further hostile allusions were made. The meet-
ing passed off quietly ; and the Bishop had.the
honour
of having d C successfully arrest an attempt, unhappily
now of too common occurrence, to turn a religious
meeting into an arena of controversy.—Correspondent
of an Evening Paper.

THE ISTHMUS OF DARlEN.—Recent intel-
ligence from Panama represents that the Franco-Gre.
naelin Company are at length on the point of break-
irg ground on the work of the canal a:cross the Isthmus,
under the auspices cf the agent of the Company, Moo,,
Alpheus° Morel, to whcse enthusiasm, energy and perse-
verance. amid a series of difficulties and dangers, this
great undertaking* will ovre its accomplishment. The
principal d.fficulty, ti-at of a union of capital, the agent
says in a letter of the 9th of December last., has been cover.
come.capitalp er aso
beent h
a tparno provided, and
m arianlel
ci so
m readyrn u
to
ic.
a n acrossc c
o
the Isthmus, soh important to the interests
i camm
Thatc
of commerce, will probably soo e hed.—New York Sun.
LEAMINGTON.—The Countess of Datlington,
Lady Augusta Paulet,
°t
i
the Hen. MN. L. Fox, Lady Na.
pier, the Right Hor. Sir Robert Gordon, Lord 'Maidstone,
&c., have been bete the last few days, from the Duke of
Rutland's. Mrs. Lane Fox left tc-day for Sir Charles
and the Hon. Lady Knightley's, Fawsley Park, near Nor-
thampton,

---~- f~.; ~.

I

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, APRIL 2.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, APRIL 2.
His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR took unopposed pet
tions and short causes to-day.

SHERIFFS' CO UR T, APRIL 1.
FORD V. LOCK.

The plaintiff is a widow residing in Crown-street, West.
minster, and the defendant the private secretary of the Earl
of Tankerville. She sought to recover the sum of 41 6s ,
due for rent and money lent under the following circum-
stances: —On the second or third of February, 1840, a lady
called at the plaintiff's residence, a lodging •house in Crown-
street, and requested to see certain apartments; after look-
ing at them she said they would very likely suit her, but
she could not definitely engage them till her husband saw
them. She then went away, but called again in the even-
ing in company with the defendant, whom she represented as
her husband, and Mr. Lock saying that the apartments
would suit, a curtain sum was agreed upon as the rent, and
the lady, who was understood to be Mrs. Lock, took pos•
sessi-m of them that evening. The defendant came shortly
sfter, ascl c3ntinued there for some months. with the ex-
ception of about a fortnight, when he was with the Earl of
Tankerville, in the country. He also obtained the loan of
small sums of money from time to time from the old lady,
a part of which he now refused to pay. The plaintiff had
written to defendant a sharp letter, on finding the balance
due to her not forthooming, threatening to complain of his
conduct to Lord Tankerville, upon which defendant called,
and told her that, from her presumption in sending such an
epistle, he would not pay her a farthing ; he was not liable,
he had not taken the apartments, and the lady was not his
wife.

Several witnesses were called to substantiate this state-
ment on the part of the plaintiff, from which it appeared
that def2ndant, on being asked for the money, examined his
bunk, and said that the amount due was only 31 163.
In cross-examination it appeared that the sums spoken
to by the witnesses as lent t, the defendant were repaid by
him.

Emma Webb, alias Mrs. Lock, and other showily at•
tire] fema!e2, were called on the part of the defendant,
who contradicted almost everything proved by the plain-
tirs wi:nesses, Emma Webb affirming that she always
went by the name of Webb, and that Mr. Lock- had no-
taing what,.?ver to do with engaging the apartments.
Teo Learned UNDER-SHERIFF read over the evilence,
and observed that if the Jury thought the defendant had sanc-
tioned the t ikicg of the apartments by his conduct, they
would find for the plaintiff. There waz, however, no evi-
dence of the lending of money which had not been repaid.
The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the
plaintiff for the amount of rent claimed.— Damages, 31. 163.
ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT:--KINGSTON, APRIL 2.
(Before Lnrd DENMAN and a Common Jury.)
ROSS V. NORRIS—LIBEL.

This was an action for libel brought by the plaintiff
against the defendant, the publisher of the Railway
Times, for an account which appeared in that paper
on the subject of a Company called the Cornwall Har-
bour and Victoria Railway Compmy, of which the
plaintiff had bean the Secretary.
Mr. Thesiger and Mr. Gurney were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Platt and Mr. Petersdorff for the defendant.
The defendant pleaded a justification and a variety
of other pleas.

Mr. THESIGER state] the case, aid said that the
plaintiff in 1836 had projected the Company in ques-
tion, which was intended to open a more extended
:Leans of communication with the West of England,
and the plaintiff was the Secretary ; the affair did turn
out a falure, and the plaintiff's circumstances did be-
come embarrassed, and he was arrested, and subse-
quently a report in connection with the Company wai
published in the Railway Times, in which the most
disgraceful conduct was imputed to the plaintiff, and he
had no alternative but to bring the present action in
vindication of his character. Great difficulty hal,
however, been thrown in his way by the Company
keeping back his hooks, which would have given im-
portant evidence in his behalf, but still he hoped to be
able to obtain that satisfaction at the hands of the
Jury to which he was entitled.

The sale of the paper, coot airiing the alleged libel, at
the office in Fleet-street, was then proved; and the
libel was read. It charged the plaintiff with peculation
of various kinds, and attributed the failure cf the Com-
pany to his misconduct. As there was no proof of pub-
lication in the county of Surrey, however, it was admit-
ted that, upon the general issue, the defendant must
have a verdict.

Mr. PLATT, on behalf of the riefendant, then addressed
the Jury, and said that he should satisfy them that the
report was founded in truth, and that the plea of justi-
fication would be supported by the evidence he should
adduce, and the Jury would reel themselves bound to
give a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. PLATT was then about to call his witnesses,
when a suggestion was made that the matter should be
I.3rttled by a juror being withdrawn, but a difficulty aris-
ing as to the question of costs, the Evidence was gone
into.

Sr C. Lemon, M.P., identified n paper produced as
the handwriting of tlipe plaintiff. This paper contained
a report of a preliminary meeting for the formation of
the Company in question, and repr.!sented that he (Sir
C. Lemon) bad moved a resolution in approbation of
the Company. He was not present at any meeting, and
did not move any such resolution.

Cross-examined—Had knoivn the plaintiff before,
and, in the course of conversation, might have ex
pressed his approval of the proposed plan. He, how-
ever, always said that he did not think it would make a
good private speculation, and he forbade the use of his
name.

Mr. Ponsford deposed that he was one of the Di.
rectors of the Company in question. He also stated,
that on one occasion he gave the plaintiff a cheque for
23?1. to pay the account of Mr. Barker, the adver-
tising agent, who never received the money, and
brought an action against the Company for the amount,
and obtained a verdict. He hal also given the plain-
tiff a cheque for 311. for another tradesman, and this
sum was also never accounted for.

Cross-examined—Was aware that the prospectus
referred to had been circulated.
Mr. Cobb, the solicitor to the Company, proved
that, he had brought an action against the pl anal for
this sum, and recovered it ; and Ross subsequently
brought an action against the Company for an alleged
balance due to him, and he was not suited,
Mr. Barker proved that he never received the cheque
for 232/. from the plaintiff ; and a clerk from Lad-
brook's Bank was examined to prove that the cheque
in question, and other of the Company's cheques, had
been paid into the Bank to the private account of the
plaintiff.
The clerk to an engraver, named Sylverton, proved
that business had been done for the Company to the
amount of 311. Gs., and he never teeeivel a cheque for
that sum from the plaintiff. .

Sir William Molesworth, whose name had also been
mentioned by the plaintiff; in the prospectus referred to,
as being connected with the Company, proved that he
bad no connection with it, and never authorised his
name to be brought forward, neither did he ever move
or second any resolution approving of the objects of
the proposed Company.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up, observe I that no an-
swer appeared to have:been given to the case made out
by the defendant, in reference to the cheques ; and, as
to what had been said about keepinc, back the Com-
pany's books, if the plaintiff thought they were essential
to make out his case, nothing could be easier than for
him to have given notice to produce them ; but this he
bad not done. With regard to the prospectus that had
been alluded to, there could be no doubt that it was a
great fraud upr the public, by pretending to give the
sanction and tfplibrt, icof distinguished persons to a

SEELEY V. FISHER..
The Loan CHANCELLOR. gave judgment to-day in this
case, which was argued before the Court on Wednesday last.
Ili, Lordship observed that the injunction, which the present
motion sought to dissolve restrained the defendants from pub-
lishing the edition of Scott's Bible, which they had com-
menced publishing in numbers, with a certain wrapper, con-
taining- a description of the Book, and also from
publishing any advertisement or statement to the effect
that the work contained or would contain the whole of the
observations of Thomas Scott and the last corrections and im-
provements made by him which he bequeathed to the world.
Now the first observaticn upon that was that there was no such
advertisement, for, as his Lordship read it, it could have no
such interpretation. It was assumed that the advertisement
announced to the world that the edition published by the
defendants contained all the last corrections and improvements
made by Scott ; in his Lordship's opinion, the advertisement
answered anything but that description. So far, therefore, as
the advertisement formed part of the injunction, there was no-
thing to support it. The next subject for consideration was
the wrapper. The quesion was not one of piracy, because it
was admitted by the plaintiffs that the defendants had not pub-
lished anything of that in which the firmer claimed a copyright.
The defendants hid not published the fifth editie n, and it was
admitted that the fuiirth edition was not covered by any copy-
right, and it was not disputed that the defendants had a tight
to reprint all that was in the fourth edition. It was equally
clear that the plaintiffs had a copyright in the fifth edi-
tion, but of what that edition contested was not clearly
stated in the affidavit, but there could be no doubt that
Mr. Scott, the author of the former editions, did
subs-quen, to the publication of the fourth edi!ion employ him-
self in making- alterations and additions to that edition, and
therefore there did exist at. the time of his death that which
formed the Subject of copyright, to which the plaintiff was en-
titled. Now the com, laint against the defendants was,
that they had announced to the world that they were
publishing something more than was contained in the
fourth edition ; and the question to be considered was,
looking at the advertisement and the wrapper, whether such
was th fact. if the defendants had announced that thelr
work contained that which was in the fifth edition, then they
would be publishing that to which the plaintiff was entitled ;
and it would come within the terms of the injunction. But if
it appeared from the advertisement and the wrapper that what
they meant to convey to the public was that the fourth
edition contained all that was the work of Mr.
Scott, and that any further works professing to be his were not
tru,, that might be the subject of complaint on the part of the
plaintiffs, but it was not matter for an injunction. Now,
looking at the terms of the advertisement and wrapper, his
Lordship could not but think that that which was in-
tended by the defendants was to hold up to the world that
nothing after the fourth edition was the work of Scott. On both
these documents, therefore, it was clear to his Lordship's mind
that it was not held out by the defendants that they intended
to publish that in which the plaintiffs had a copyright, and until
a Jury had toll him that he was wrong in that conclusion, he
felt bound to dissolve the injunction.—lnjunction dissolved.
The Court then proceeded to hear lunatic petitions and
appeals.

scheme with which they were not in any way con-
nected. The libel in question certainly cast very
strong imputations upon the plaintiff, and which, if not
true, ought not to have been published ; but this was a
question for the Jury. If they thought the statement
had been justified, they would find for the defendant ;
but if not, they would then return a verdict for the
plaintiff, with such damages as they considered the jus-
tice of the case required.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a ver-
dict for the defendant upon all the issues.