The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-26 00:00:00

POLICE I.

and employed, were there more intercourse between
these two classes, and were they more frequently to
consult with each other as to their mutual interest,
there would be much less of that unfortunate colli-
sion which they now experienced.
Dr. GUTHRIE seconded the motion.
Mr. CALVIN EVANS, a working man, rose and
said he had an amendment to propose. He mounted
the platform, and said his amendment was, that
Mr. Black was unworthy of the thanks f the
meeting, an announcement which was received
with a perfect storm of hissing and hooting, which
continued all the time that he continued speaking.
In the midst of the noise,
Mr. D. J. THOMSON moved a vote of thanks to
the chairman, and the Lord Provost vacated the
chair.

THE MORTARA CASE.

(From the Times.)
It really seems as if there were among our Roman
Catholic fellow-subjects men who were desirous to
force upon the Government and people of these
islands a reconsideration of a great public measure,
solemnly resolved upon after a long controversy, and
founded on views the most liberal, and as we are still
willing to believe, the most enlightened. We know
that the Roman Catholic faith is not the faith of
these kingdoms. Why will the Roman Catholics 1
labour so sedulously to convince us that our country
is not their country, our interests are not their
interests, and our standard of morality is not their
standard of morality ? Cannot they receive at our
hands a toleration, an indulgence, a consideration
utterly unknown to every nation in which their
faith is in the ascendant, without seeking to abuse
the liberty they enjoy by putting forth doctrines
shocking to every feeling and every conviction of
the nation in the midst of which they live ? One
weak we see the Bishops of the Roman Catholic
Churth in Ireland effecting a diversion in favour of
the Pope by an attack on the national system of
education, which was designed for and accepted by
their predecessors as a great boon, which has
worked successfully for 30 years, and which, though
accused of proselytising tendencies, has never been
shown to have made a single proselyte. Upon this
scarcely dissembled onslaught on the well7meant
attempts of good men of all parties to promote
popular education in Ireland follows a denunciation
of any sympathy with the inhabitants of the Papal
States in their present sore need, because the con-
tinuance of Papal despotism in temporal matters is
part of the religion of the writer, who, though sym-
pathising most keenly with the alleged oppression
of Ireland, holds in the utmost horror the longings
of Italy for emancipation from ecclesiastical tyranny.
And now, not content with exhibiting themselves
as the champions of ignorance and the supporters
of tyranny, to-day our columns are sullied by the
appearance of a letter the object of which is indi-
rectly to defend the proceedings of the Papal
Government with Mortara—pro-
ceedingsard to the boy
which even Roman Catholic nations have
regarded with dismay and aversion. This day it is
no conclave of bishops nominally met to deliberate ;
it is no veteran agitator who values his sacred office
mainly for the power which it gives him over the
minds of an ignorant and exciteasle population; it
is an English country gentleman of ancient lineage
and unquestioned private character, who comes for-
ward as the apologist of one of the worst iniquities
for which Rome of late years has had to answer.
Our readers have read, and we confess we
should have thought but for Mr.• Langdale's
letter that no layman could have read with-
out assent, the emphatic protest signed by a
number of bishops, noblemen, and gentlemen
against the conduct of the Papal Government in
the case of the boy Mortara. The facts have long
been notorious, but will bear a brief recapitulation,
especially as Mr. Langdale thinks that he has de-
tected a case completely analogous in the ordinary
conduct of Englishmen. The boy Mortara, the
child of Jewish parents, was, it appears, clandes-
tinely baptised by a maidservant into the Church
of Rome. On,the strength of this baptism the child
was on the 24th of June, 1858, when six or seven
years old, forcibly taken from his parents by the
Papal Government, and conveyed under an escort
of soldiers tl a convent in Rome. Sir Moses Monti-
fibre, on behalf of the British Jews, went to Rome
to obtain, if possible, the liberation of the child
The Pope absolutely refused to see him, and he was
informed that the child should not be released. The
protest, as Mr. Langdale truly says, censures this
proceeding on two grounds—first, that the child is
taken away from the authority of his parents ; and
secondly, that he is educated in a religion of which
they. disapprove. Mr. Langdale is evidently of
opinion that in so doing the head of the Roman
Catholic Church acted well and wisely •, that, the
child having become a member of that Church by
the treacherous and dishonourable act which the
servant perpetrated under his father's roof, the
Pope had a right to call in his civil to the assist-
ance of his spiritual authority, and to kidnap the
child of bis subject in order to bring it up in the
bitterest hatred and contempt of its parents and
their religion. The tie he thinks which bound the
parent, to the child, and which Burke not inaptly
called 'the sacrament of nature, was rudely broken
by the furtive administration of the sacrament of
baptism to an unconscious infant, and the civil power
of the State was well exerted to enforce a right so
obtained for an end so desirable. But, instead of
coming forward as the direct apologist of proceed-
ings which evidently excite his warmest sympathies,
Mr. Langdale thinks it easier and safer to be himself
the assailant, and to protect the Papal Government by
attacking those who protest against its bigotry and
tyranny. The case of Mortara is, according to Mr.
Langdale, constantly the case of children in every
Poor Law Union in England. Children, he says,
are taken from a starving parent to be educated in
a faith contrary to their parents' will, or else the
last moments of a widowed mother are invaded by
the assurance that her child will be educated in a
religion which she believes will lead to an eternal
separation between them. To be sure, Mr. Lang-
dale admits that the law does not direct this, that
the matter is one of local management; but still he
maintains the cases to be strictly parallel, and calls
with much triumph upon the protesters to apply to
this cruelty the same indignation as they apply to
the Mortara outrage.
Mr. Langdale shrouds himself in vague, and we
dare say he thinks safe, generalities ; but the dif-
ference between the case put and the case protested
against is, even as he states it, so plain, that we
are almost ashamed to point it out. The Roman
Government took the child from parents well able
to maintain, it, by violence and contrary to their
protestations and reclamations. In the English
case put by
.Mr. Langdale there is no taking at all.
If a parent is unable to support a child from sick-
ness or poverty, the child is admitted into the
Union Workhouse, not in contravention of the
wishes of the parent, or with the view of prosely-
tism, but merely for the purpose of preserving its
life—a stretch of humanity which is not, we be-
lieve, to be found in any Roman Catholic country.
When placed in the workhouse the child is in-
structed together with the other children, and it
learns such religion as is taught there as a part of its
education. There is no wish to make converts or
proselytes, but the Board of Guardians believe, and
rightly, as we think, that they are not bound out of
the funds placed at their disposal for the relief of the
poor to provide separate spiritual instructors,accord
ing to the religion of the parent. This is Mr. Lang-
dale's parallel case. In the one case there is a taking
away by violence of a child whom the parents
were willing to maintain and educate, in the other
there is a receiving with the consent of the parents
of the child, under a benevolent law, into a place
where the State may perform towards it that duty
of nurture which the parents, through poverty,
sickness, or death, are unable to discharge. In the
one case the child is seized that it may be prosely-
tized, in the other it is received that it may be
kept alive. The whole gravamen of Mr. Langdale's
charge is, that in the case of those who are sup-
ported on public charity the State has not thought
fit to require that special religious instructors
should be maintained. It will be a happy day far
the Roman people when such is the heaviest accu-
sation that a bitter and uncandid enemy can bring
against the priestly tyranny under which they
groan.
But Mr. Langdale does not appear to have care-
fully considered his own position. It is quite pos-
sible to disapprove the treatment of the parents of
the boy Mortara without seeing anything repre-
hensible in the management of our Poor Law
Unions. Bnt the converse would seem to us im-
possible. It seems to us impossible to disapprove,
as Mr. Langdale appears to do, the conduct of our
Poor Law Guardians, and yet to approve, as Mr.
Langdale appears to do, the treatment of the boy
Mortara. Not to provide Roman Catholic instruc-
tion for a young.. Roman Catholic is surzly less scan-
dalous than by force and fraud to pw,li Roman
Catholic instruction on a Jew. To omit a duty
which the State never undertook is surely less cul-
pable than to violate a right which lies at the
foundation of civil society—the right of every
parent, so long as he is able, to maintain and edu.
cate his ch ild, to bring him up in his own faith-
There is, indeed, one way of reconcilbig these con-
tradictions ; the Catholic religion is true, and
therefore its infallible head may propagate it by
force and fraud. The Protestant religion is false,
and therefore its professors are bound to pay out
of the poor-rates for instructors to expose its
ttehalnabtoour try to
.or y raise llis
absurdities. It would be more seemly in the
defenders
Government
('rtothoeur vePloepel
trans-
parent sophiSDIS to drag down our practice to his.

CE, Oct. 25.

GUILDHALL.—Mr. Tallent, a bookseller in
Paternoster-row, was summoned before Sir Peter
Laurie to show cause why he refused to pay the
amount of 17s. 6d. for a church-rate in the parish of
St. Faith-the-Virgin, under St. Paul's.
A clerk attended from Mr. Tallent, and stated
his employer was ill, and at the same time he
handed in a formal notice from Mr. Tallent, stat-
ing his objection to the rate, and his determination
to contest its validity.
Sir Peter Laurie—Why does Mr. Tallent object
to pay this rate ?
The Clerk—He objects to the rate on account of
the Popish practices in the church.
Sir Peter Laurie—Then the sooner they put an
end to them the better.
Mr. Hicks, the churchwarden—l do not live in
the parish, and do not, therefore, attend the parish
church. I have only attended it once, and that
was on the occasion of a charity sermon, and I did
not observe any Popish practices then. If I were
aware that such practices existed I would do all in
my power to put a stop. to them. I may, however,
state that the service is intoned, and that is the
worst feature in it. (Laughter.)
Sir Peter Laurie—lf every one would make the
same objection it would soon put an end to these
Popish practices.
Mr. Hicks—The fact is the recent change in the
form of worship observed in the church, from strong
Calvinistic to High Church, seems to have given
offence to the congregation. It was not so much
the music as thefsymbolical additions to the service
that were objected to.
Mr. Martin (the chief clerk)—l suppose the
church is not much frequented ?
Mr. Hicks—No, sir; none of the parishioners
attend the church, as they live out of town.
, Mr. Martin—What have you to say to this no-
tice which Mr. Tallent has forwarded?
Mr. Hicks—The validity of the rate not having
been questioned in any ecclesiastical court, Mr.
Tallent is, I apprehend, too late with his objection.
Mr. Martin—There is a recent case reported of
" Reg. v. Nunneley," in which the defendant gave
a similar notice in writing, to the following effect :
I hereby give you notice that I dispute the validity of
the church-rate now in question, owinc, to various irregu-
larities which were committed by the chairman at the meet-
ing for levying the said rate, and subsequently on taking
the poll, and that I am advised by counsel that such rate is
illegal ; and I further give you notice that if any distress
warrant is granted against me, I shall sue you at law for
damages."
By the 53d Geo. 111., cap. 127, sec. 7, which gives
summary jurisdiction to the justices in such cases,
it is provided that " if the validity of such rate, or
the liability of the person from whom it is demanded
to pay the same, be disputed, and the party dis-
puting the same shall give notice thereof to the
justices, the justices shall forbear giving judgment
thereupon, and the person or persons demanding
the same may then proceed to the recovery of their
demand according to the course of law as heretofore
used and accustomed." In that case, the magistrate
made an order which was subsequently quashed by
the Court of Queen's Bench, on the ground that,
the rate being disputed, the justices had no power
to make the order.
Mr. Hicks—But this is only an objection to
evade the rate. With regard to the Popish prac-
tices it is all humbug. (Laughter.)
Mr. Martin—Which do you mean is humbug,
the:Popish practices or the objection ? (Renewed
laughter.)
Mr. Hicks (to the audience)—lt is no laughing
matter, I can assure you. (Laughter.)
Sir Peter Laurie—Well, we do not want any of
the St. George's-in-the-East practices in the city.
(Cheers from the auditory.)
Mr. Hicks—Our rector JS the son of the Rev. Dr.
Milman, the Dean of St. Paul's, and the service is
similar to the cathedral service, in which, of course,
there is a great deal of music.
Sir Peter Lauri—Does this intoning cost more or
entail any extra expense ?
Mr. Hicks—lt does not cost the vestry a farthing,
sir, for the rector pays for all out of his own pocket.
Sir P. Laurie—l wish it were made more expen-
sive to the vestry, as they would then have it in
their power to stop it, (Laughter.)
Mr. Hicks (appealing to the audience)—lt is no
laughing matter.
Sir P. Laurie—They seem to think differently.
St. George's-in-the-East has set the example for
laughing at such practices.
Mr. Hicks—This objection to the rate is an idle
excuse to evade payment. There is no complaint
of any excessive outlay, and, indeed, there cannot_
be, for some time back the salaries of all who were
paid out of the rate were cut down to half the ori-
ginal amounts. We now pay the organist only £lO
a year for coming twice a week, barely sufficient to
buy shoeleather ' • and £5 a year for lighting the
gas, ringing the bells, and blowing the organ.
Mr. Martin—And are those sums paid out of the
church-rate
Mr. Hicks—Yes, sir. The pew-openers and the
sexton are also paid out of the rate.
Mr. Martin—lf you will make a rate including
only such items as the law recognises as necessary
for the decent observance of public worship in the
church, then you may come here and enforce your
demand ; but the application of the rate to other
purposes is illegal, and any claim for a rate so ap-
plied cannot be supported.
Mr. Hicks—My year of office is nearly expired,
and I will therefore leave that for my successor.
As there seems to be some difficulty in the present
case I will let it pass.
Mr. Martin—l would recommend you at all events
to delay enforcing your claim until you have in-
serted in the rate only such items as the law sanc-
tions for the support of the church.
The summons was then dismissed for want of
jurisdiction, the churchwardens being left to their
remedy in the Ecclesiastical Court.

LAMBETH.—CHARGE OF CRIMINALLY AS-
SAULTING A YOUNG WOMAN.—James Stevens, a
young man, was charged before Mr. Yardley with
a criminal assault upon Margaret Luck, aged 25, an
unmarried female, who lives with her brother at 25,
Lillington-strett, Vauxhall-bridge-road.
The complainant stated that at about seven
o'clock the previous night she met the prisoner,
who was a total stranger to her, in Grosvenor-park,
Walworth, When, as the night was very foggy, in
consequence of which she had lost her way, she
asked him to direct her to Vauxhall-bridge. He
said he was going part of the way, and he went
with her some distance. On the way he treated
her with a glass of ale, and at another house he per-
suaded her to have a glass of gin-and-water. She
remained with him till :about 11 o'clock, about
which time he induced her to go into a low-priced
theatre, near the Westminster-bridge-road, and ad-
joining one of the arches of the South-Western
Railway. He then gave her a glass of gin, upon
taking which she became overpowered, and was
soon in a state of insensibility. She recollected no-
thing more till about two o'clock the following
morning, when she found herself in bed at home.
In answer to Mr. Yardley, complainant stated
that when she -recovered herself she found her
dress, shawl, and bonnet very much torn. She re-
collected that before she was overpowered she told
the prisoner where she lived. She was told by the
persons 'in the house where she lived that she was
brought home in a cab. She was much injured.
Mr. Yardley asked if the cabman who took her
home had been found.
Inspector Ceaplin, B division, replied that he was
in the court.
Fred. llawcock, badge 11,111, cab driver, de-
posed that about a quarter past 11 o'clock the pre-
vious night, he was in Hercules-buildings, West-
minster-bridge-roud, when he was called by some
one. He saw the complainant, who was sitting on
the pavement with her back against a wall, and
she was insensible. She was assisted into the cab
by the prisoner and another man. The prisoner,
who said that he had only just seen the com-
plainant, told him where to take her to. Prisoner
went to Lillington-street, where complainant was
admitted by some man, who soon after came out
and directed him to send for a policeman, observing
that he thought there was something wrong. The
prisoner remarked that there was nothing wrong in
him, and that he had promiscuously met her. A
police-constable was sent for, and the prisoner was
taken to the police-station of the B division,
Rochester-row.
Wm. Luck, complainant's brother, corroborated
the evidence as to the state in which the com-
plainant was, and as to the state of her dress. He
was satisfied that there was something wrong,
when'he sent for a surgeon, and in consequence of
the representation made to him he sent for a po-
lice-constable, who took theprisoner into custody.
By Mr. Yardley—My sister has always been a
well conducted young woman, and has behaved
herself respectably. She has,been in service, and
has always had excellent characters. I have made
inciniries, nod have ascertained that she was seen
drinking with some man like the prisoner.
Mr. Yardley asked if it had been found where
the complainant had been after she was taken to
the theatre she had alluded to.
The Inspector observed that there had not been
time to-make the inquiry.
Smith, 262 B, stated, that the prisoner was given
into his custody on a charge of having administered-
something deleterious to complainant, and of also
having committed the capital offence. He made a
statement to witness which was corroborated in
many particulars lay the statement made by the
complainant.

Mr. Wrn. Whitmarsh, assistant to Mr. Pearce,
surgeon of the B division, proved having examined
the complainant, and dated that the capital offence