The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-07 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EV ENINO, MARCH 7, 1861.

upon us ; but, if it be otherwise) a terrible respon-
sibility will rest upon it, and the sufferings of iiiil;
lions will bear testimony to the policy an I wicked-
ness of our aggressors. In the meantim -. there will
remain to us, besides the ordinary rem dies before
suggested, the well known resources ' r retaliation
upon the commerce of an enemy. I xperience in
public stations of a subordinate grade to this which
your kindness has conferred has taught me that
care and toil and disappointments are the price of
official elevation. You will see many errors to for-
give—many deficiencies to tolerate ; but you shall
not find in me either want of zeal or fidelity to the
cause that is to me the highest in hope and of Most
enduring affection. Your generosity has bestowed
upon me an undeserved distinction—one which I
neither sought nor desired. Upon the continuance of
1 that sentiment and on your Wisdom and patriotism
I rely to support me in the performance of the duty
required at my hands. We have changed the con-
stituent parts, but not the system of our Govern-
ment. The constitution formed by our fathers is
that of these confederate States in their exposition
of it, and in the judicial construction it has received
we have a light which reveals its true meaning.
Thus instructed as to the just interpretation of that
Instrument, and ever remembering that all offices
are but trusts held for the people, and that delegated
powers are to ba strictly construed, I will hope, by
due diligence in the performance of my duties,
though I may disappoint your expectations, yet to
retain, when retiring, something of the good will
and confidence which will welcome my entrance
into office. It is joyous in the midst of perilous
times to look around upon a people united in heart,
where one purpose of high resolve animates and
actuates the whole ; where the sacrifices to be made
are not weighed in the balance against honour,
right, liberty, and equality. Obstacles may retard,
but they cannot long prevent, the progress of a
movement sanctioned by its justice, and sustained
by a virtuous people. Reverently let us invoke the
God of our fathers to guide, and provide, and pro-
tect us in our efforts to perpetuate the principles
which, by His blessing, they were able to vindicate,
establish, and transmit to their posterity, and, with
a continuance of his favour, ever gratefully ac-
knowledged, we may hopefully look forward to
success, to peace, to posterity.
•
THE ESSAIS AND .REVIEWS.

(From the Dispatch.)

We scarcely expected, when we called attention
to the five authors who have so heroically 'leaped
into the yawning chasm of orthoddxy, that the
public would have responded with such eager
alacrity. The fifth large edition of the arch-victim
of the Index Expurgatorius of Anglican Protes-
tantism is already sold out—Dr. M'Caul's cheeping
penny trumpet has been a book-selling success—
and the Quarterly Review is running through its
third edition. We seem to be on the threshold of
our second Reformation. Every bishop in Eng-
land, High Church, Low Church, Broad-bottomed
Church, has signed a requisition to the Archbishop
of Canterbury to put the Essayists on their trial.
From Heretic Hampden and Orthodox Oxford to
the saints and the Tractarians, the whole pack
turns out to worry the common sacrifice to offended
sacerdotalism. Every diocese has its sub-remon-
strance; every deanery musters its petition. Dis-
tricts "get up" their protest; and, shortly, every
parish will launch the thunderbolt of its anathema.
The cry of the mob is, " Why need we hear more !
Away with him !"
Well, that is the free-and-easy short cut to the
solution of spiritual difficulties—the "real old ori-
ginal" recipe of the Church as by law established
for securing uniformity. The time-honoured toast
of roaring and ranting Tories was " The land we
live in ; let those who don't like it leave it." So
long as the majority was not openly arrayed
against them, and they could persuade themselves
and society that they were too powerful to be suc-
cessfully withstood, their bluster and dictation
answered its purpose, and overawed the voice of
liberty. But men began to murmur, "We don't
like the laud we live in, and we won't leave it.
It is as much our land as yours. It is oppressed
and misgoverned ; we shall expose the rotten-
ness of your pretensions, and the dishonesty
of your professions ; the truth shall be told, and the
people shall have their own." The political logic
of the Tories, which has so egregiously failed, is
exactly imitated by the theological casuistry of the
clergy. If thoughtful, earnest and free-souled men
make wry faces at the Articles, and cannot swallow
the creeds, and are squeamish about the services—
if they don't, in short, like the Church, let them
leave it and resign their offices. The answer of the
schismatic is equally to the point. -When " the
world is out of joint, 'ought men to commit suicide
or to "set it right ?" If I discover abuses, errors,
untenable absurdities in my Church, what is my
duty ? To reform the evil or to abandon the Church?
If by reason of these very defects the ranks of Dis-
sent are daily recruited, and the army of the Devil
made stronger than the Church militant, is the
best way to save the Establishment to abandon it 1
to its fate, or to redress its defects, purge it of its
foul blots, cut the cankers out of it, and conform its
spirit to e spirit of the age ?
The reply of the Archbishop to the requisition of
the right reverend bench is exactly in the style of
the " good old times when George the Third was
King." " Whether the language in which these
views are expressed is such as to make their publi-
cation an act which could be visited in the Eccle-
siastical Courts, or to justify the synodical con-
demnation of the book which contains them, is still
under our gravest consideration." " But our main
hope is our reliance on the blessing of God." He
will" take the law" of them if his attorney advises
that an action would lie; if not, he will trust to
Providence—that venerable refugeior the clerical
destitute. We cannot understand," he groans,
" how their opinions can be held consistently with
an honest subscription to the formularies of our
Church." Don't talk about the abstract dictates of
justice, and such romantic stuff. The point has been
settled ; see here are a dozen precedents, there is the
leading case. The law is my justice. I won't
argue with you ; here are the term reports, and
there is Doctor Fust's opinion that you have not
a leg to stand on. Free discussion ! Why you
might as well ask Lord Palmerston to go back to
the fundamental principles of the social compact.
The interests of truth ! Why not tell me at once,
"Sell all thou hast and give to the poor," or to go
back to the pre-fig-leaf period, or discuss the eter-
nal fitness of things, the origin of society, or the
doctrine of a community of goods. We must draw
the line somewhere. The law says at the Articles.
As to going back to what are called " first princi-
ples," that would be "extremely inconvenient."
We shall stick by the law as the fathers of the
Church did before us. These are the standards—
if you can bolt them whole it will be the better
for you—if not, you are to us as "an heathen man
and publican," and the short cut to the close of the
controversy is to pronounce the "anathema mara-
natha "

That is the parson's way of doing business, and
so long as the priests alone were the Church the
expedient might serve the purpose. But we lire,
not in the fourteenth but in the nineteenth cen-
tury, and the second half of it too. We have found
out that " the Sabbath was made for man, not man
for the Sabbath "—the fold :is for the sheep, not
for the shepherd—the Church is the property of
the State—the patrimony'of the people, and of all
the people. If the great majority dissent from it,
thAt ia a.reason, not for excluding non-conformity
.49upithaChurch, but
.ocwidepin the Church, so
as,tp non-cOnprnfity Will the commu-
nity
.t‘ grossly gape " and,See'the champions of.
their spiritual liberty not Openly ebnfronted in the
lists of fair argument; but stabbed' in the back by
an action on the case? Is an attorney to fix the
faith of man's immortal Soul, and the " glorious
Gospel of the blessed God " to be tumbled into
a proctor's brief bag, or to rot in the
charnel-house of tradition ? Is religion to be
fashioned for the dead or the living ? . Is it to be
made for 'us or by us ? Is it the individual concern
of each one of us now d'here, or is it a spiritual
entail that we are to inherit :with the dirty acres of
Our ancestors? It is 'three hundred years since one
of the greatest scoundrels that ever set conscience
at defiance settled of his own motion "the formu-
laries of our Church." That fact alone is decisive

of the question of their pretensions. Are we not so
much as to be allowed to look into them ? Is this,

the vital concern of the immortal spirit of a great
people, to be determined by class interests—the
same authority on which we found the powers of
secular legislation ? Our case is that, out of thirty
.niillions of British subjPcts, only five millions even
nominally give so math as a mere negative assent
to theseTormularies.. ,Because there 'is a bench of
Bishops2--beeause a House of Lords Would still re-
fuse ,to 'repeal the stattiteS
.requiring subscription,
and Abe- laws which the these formularies—are
twenty-five millions of, accountable creatures to
yield acqUiescenco as to 'au income-tax or a prohi-
bitoryduty on the importation of brandy ? This
Is a queStion in which " De LOlmenn the Constitu-
..qonn will help us but a little way. Queen, Lords,
An,cl Nimmons are of no more account in settling
• ToMP'S religious belief than in fixing the principles
clVeliOe! Or determining the canons of art.
racing their-history, is it proliaM that 'these

iormtilarieS litre tierfeet ?—i6 it io:7:91 te that they
should be free of grave and even cardinal errors ?
Does anybody, in point of fact, accept them sum-
pliciter ? Have not the very Bishops who
have signed this Address, and the Archbishop
Who has atistrered it, openly and even officially
preached exceptions to them—thatged their clergy
so as to challenge theta by implication—nay, owned
in their places in Parliament that the 4,000 par-
sons, the lay Churchmen, the Peers who had all
demanded their revision, were justified in the criti-
cisms they made on them, and that they were to be
retained, ildt because they Were trite, btit because
change was impolitic ? If Churchmen claim infal-
libility for their formularies, we have no more to
say, except that Protestantism is a gross swindle,
and that the Pope and the Catholics should have
their own again. To insist upon squaring the pre-
dication of otir living teachers with the effete- for-
mularies of a long superannuated Act of Parliament
or the dicta of 300 dead Popes, can only be so much
as excused upon the hardy assumption that they are
infallible, and that " The Bible" is not " the sole
religion of Protestants." Why, even the Vatican,
Popery itself, does not pretend to such an " imma-
culate conception" of "absolute wisdom." Papists
themselves, the slaves of authority, have, at least,
taken care that their infallibility shall always be
capable of changing with the spirit of the age, and
shall centre, not in dead dogmas, but in the soul of a
living man. They even enunciate the new doctrine
of development—argue that religion is a subject of
human progress—is to be gradually unfolded, re-
vealed bit by bit, modified and expanded as intel-
ligence, civilisation, ands spiritual attainment per-
mit or prompt. We are utterly amazed at the
judicial blindness which prefers such pretensions as
are at present arrogated by orthodox Churchmen.
Let them twist and turn, and quirk and quibble as
they will, what does their casuistry come to at last
but that their doctrines are to be assumed, not exa-
mined—that their articles are to be implicitly ac•
cepted, not freely argued—that their canons and
services are not to be so much as questioned, or one
tittle of them subjected to discussion. If they are
liable to error, if they are confessedly human, and,
therefore, imperfect, it must be the interest and
right of every succeeding generation to vindicate
to themselves the same liberty of private
judgment which must have been asserted by
those who differed from Rome and made the new
theological dispensation—to debate and argue every
point, and to form and express each his own
opinion, as those did who, in a more bigoted and
ignorant age, tainted with the prejudices of an
early Popish education, and oscillating for many
years between new priest and old presbyter; pre-
sumed to dictate to all posterity what they were to
affirm and deny. Is it to be tolerated for a moment
that the mere ipso dixit of the half-faced Vicars of
Bray of the sixteenth century is to be crammed
down the throats of the generation whose very
ploughmen know more than did their ancestors'
priests P
It is high time that Protestants should protest—
that the Reformation should be reformed. It has in
reality gone back. Luther was far freer-souled,
far less trammelled, much further removed from
Popery than our Archbishop of Canterbury. He
" saw this day afar off, and was glad." The age is
ripe for a second Reformation. We cannot afford to
deprecate recourse to the Ecclesiastical Courts or to
synodical action. It was better for liberty that
Hampden was prosecuted for ship-money than that
he should have been " excused his rates." We avow
the wish and hope that the Church will bring this
controversy to an issue by a formal prosecution for
heresy, and the reinstitution of an Index Expurga-
torius. " Let us have it out." A ring ! A ring !
Let the laity, the people of England, really see the
combatants stripped to the naked truth. This bat-
tle is emphatically their concern. Snug rectors,
snug deans, oily bishops, would fan huddle it
through their Ecclesiastical Courts snuffled up in
technical subterfuge, and smothered in formal
pleas. This nation must no loqger suffer the
concerns of man's higher life to be made
the sport of proctorial attorneyship. It demands
free inquiry and open. discussion. It insists upon
going to the root of the whole matter. It will not
be fobbed off and bamboozled with the old clerical
dodge of an appeal to the formularies. The very
question at issue is whether these canons are wrong.
The world has long survived enslavement to pie-
tensions to infallibility. Even Italy casts off her
fetters. Germany revolts from. tradition, the very
Reformation she consummated. Is England alone,
the champion of civil liberty, to remain the thrall
of sacerdotal dictation ? The issue is not whether
the Essayists and Reviewers conform to the formu-
laries, but whether they teach what is true ; and
upon the result of that inquest must the verdict
turn. Not the whole bench of Bishops, not the
Peers and their Privy Council, nor the Record with
the Evangelical Alliance at its back—no, not Queen,
Lords and Commons, can any longer dwarf this
controversy to a subterfuge of the rubric. There
are thirty millions of souls in this realm each with
its immortal longings. In this the meanest has a
voice potential as the greatest. They will know
the rights of it. They will have the truth, and the
" truth shall make them free." Let the people gird
up their loins for the coming struggle. We tell
them now that they have the glorious opportunity
of exchanging the dogmas of a sect for the enlight-
ened and unfettered religion of a nation—the drones
of moral hexagons hived in the holes of creeds for
open-souled seminal thinkers of their age, who dare
not abdicate the high prerogative of their minds to
think what is true and to speak what they think—
those prophets whom every era gives. to mankind,
and whose era is blessed in the proportion in which
they are heard and accepted. If they come to their
own; and their own know them not, then is the
time not worthy of them, and will sink in the
slough of the Devil, the world, and the flesh, as the
sow to her wallowing in the mire.

(From the Examiner.)
The Bishops do not appear to advantage gregari-
ously. As a correspondent of the Times points out,
upon three occasions within a few years the Bishops
have collectively dealt in protests, denunciations,
and censures, which have been utterly ineffectual
except in the consequence of some discredit to
themselves. The whole Bench, twenty-six of these
Prelates, now come forward with the Archbishop
of Canterbury at their head to pass judgment upon
the Oxford Essays and Reviews.
• • • • . Quisnam
Delator ? Quibus indiciis ? Quo teste probavit ?
Nil horum. Verbosa et grandis epistola venit.
The Bishops can dispense with charge, evidence,
proof. Nay, they can condemn without specifying
offence, as appears from this reply of the Primate to
a clergyman who had conveyed some address to
him :--

Lambeth, Feb. 12.
Rev. Sir,—l have taken the opportunity of meeting many
of my episcopal brethren in London, to lay your address
before them. •
They unanimously agree with me in expressing the pain
it has given them that any clergyman of our Church should
have published such opinions as thoso concerning which
you have addressed us.

We cannot understand how these opinions can he held
consistently with an !honest subscription to the formu-
laries of our Church, with many of the fundamental doc-
trines of which they appear to us essentially at variance.
Whether the language in which the se views are expressed
is such as to make their publication an act which could be
visited in the ecclesiastical courts, or to justify the synodi-
cal condemnation of the book which contains them is still
under our gravest consideration. But our main hope is our
reliance on the blessing of God in the continued and increas-
ing earnestness with which we trust that we and the clergy
of our several dioceses may be enabled to teach and preach
that good deposit of sound doctrine which our Church has
received in its fullness, and which we pray that she may,
through God's grace, ever set forth as the uncorrupted
Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I remain, Rev. Sir, your faithful servant,
Rev. W. Fremantle. J. B. CANTUAR.
I am authorised to append the following names :—C. J.
Ebor, A. C. London, H. M. Dunelm, C. R. Winton, H.
Exeter, C. Peterborough, C. St. David's, A. T. Chichester,
J. Lichfield, S. Oxon, T. Ely, T. V. St. Asaph, J. Y. Man
cheater, R. D. llereford, J. Chester, A. Llandaff, R. J.
Bath and Wells, J. Lincoln, C. Gloucester and Bristol, W.
Sarum, R. Ripon, J. T. Norwich, J. C. Bangor, J. Roches-
,ter, S. Carlisle. .
What the opinions- aro,,and why they are cen-
sured, ilie;prelates d 6 not vouchsafe to state. They
think it enough to assert that " such opinions" have
given them pain,: and that they cannot be held con-
sistently' with an honest subscription to the formu-
laries of the Church. But what formularies are
contravened, and how contravened, these extraor-
dinary judges do not state. They know that they
do not like the opinions as the epigrammatist knew
that he did not lik& Dr. Fell, but they cannot tell
the reason why. The Holy men are not sure
whether the language in which the views they con-
denin are expressed is such as to make them punish-
able in the ecclesiastical courts—that is to say, they
are at least not certain that there is any offence
committed;but that is no reason with them for not
passing to judgment. They confess, indeed, with
their brother of Durham, that they may be unable
to make out any case against the seven, but that
does not prevent their coming to a conclusion of
guilt. Seven, reputations are thus forthwith de-
stroyed, so far as it is in the power of the twenty-
six Bishops to defame by pastoral authority.
Surely there must at least be different degrees of
offence amongst these writers, and all cannot haven'
given the same pain to the orthodox hearts, nor
deserved the one sweeping censure in which we see
them confounded:

Amongst the Bishops we observe the name of
Hereford, who has had some practical personal
experience of the fallibility of episcopal judgments.
His promotion was the subject of protest, as the'
OxFord "Essays and Reviews" now are of denun-
ciation ; but he took his place on the Bench, never-
theless, and has now his turn of condemning heresy
without proof.
We are no champions of the " Essays and Re-

viewd; hO apolOglsts for any errors or indiscretion
which may fairly be imputable tis theta; but we
have all an interest in justice, and in making a
stand against the ruin of reputations upon grounds
not only unproved but absolutely unstated. The
correspondent of the Times to whom we have before
referred justly remarks of the denunciation :
It intimates that the grategt doubt exists as to the possi-
bility of visiting the publication of those opinions in the
ecclesiastical courts ; and yet, notwithstanding this doubt,
it ventures, without a trial, to pronounce a condemnation
which nothing but the clearest legal proof could justify. It
gives no, indication of the opinions of any one of the sub-
scribing bithopt oft Any one of the points at issue, although
it is perfectly well knovfrn that oft these points many of the
Bishops are widely at variance with each othet, and that
some of them have published opinions coincident with those
contained in the book which is condemned.

In South America there is known amongst the

cattle what is called a stampado. They are un-
accountably Belted with a sudden fury, and rush
blindly to an attack in which their own violence is
often fatal to them. What we now see is the
stampado of the Episcopal Bench. A whole herd
of Bishops make a rush against seven gentlemen,
some of them distinguished members of the Church,
others of the Universities.

To trample them under foot or gore them with
the butted mitre is the object of the onslaught, and
it is one against which common justice and
humanity should enlist the public. Men are not to
be ruined in fame and fortune upon a vague charge
of heresy not only without a specification of offence,
but accompanied with a confession that the case
cannot be brought within the category of cognisable
offence. What would be thought of a charge of
murder against any one without the corpus delicti,
without naming the slain, or a tittle of evidence to
show that any one had been killed ? What defence
could there be against such a charge at once so in-
definite and so malignant, which would be in the
eye of the law nothing better than a gross libel ? A
Holy Inquisition will certainly not be tolerated in
the Church of this Protestant country, and Bishops
must be taught that they have no right to charge
what they cannot prove, and that their duty is to
confute errors which do not amount to offences and
not to seek the social and professional ruin of the
authors whom they admit they cannot hope to
punish legally.
Let them, as they propose, apply themselves with
new zeal to the inculcation of the truths of religion,
but surely they could have set about this blessed
work without raising the cry of infidelity against
some of their brethren in the Church more eminent
in scholarship though less exalted in position than
themselves. To condemn first and try afterwards is
the abomination of injustice, but our Holy men will
not proceed to trial even after condemnation. The
Bench sends forth its fulmination with a hoc volo sic
lubeo, and there an end. There is palpable injustice
in this, but more will be suspected. It will be
thought that our Bishops are not strong enough to
do battle with the errors they arbitrarily censure, to
some of which, as the correspondent of the limes
observes, certain Prelates are indeed believed to have
a leaning. Croker in the comedy says he is always
ready to listen to reason when he has made up his
mind, because then it can do no harm. And the
public seeing the resolution of the bishops not to
hear the cause they proceed to prejudge, will have
its suspicions that some of their body are not in the
comfortable state of Croker with his mind made up.
In our notice of the Bishop of Durham'sletter on
this subject we quoted his exhortation to redoubled
exertion to improve the efficiency of the Church.
An instance of the Holy man's sincerity has since
appeared. The rectory of Haughton-le-Skeine was
vacant. Its income is £1,300 a year for the cure of
1,000 souls, and in the immediate neighbourhood
are three parishes of St. Cuthbert's, Holy Trinity,
and St. John's, Darlington, with an aggregate
population of 15,000, the emoluments of the three
incumbencies being respectively £225, £2OO, and
£175. The churchwardens of these insufficiently
served districts memorialised the bishop to allot
some part of the excessive income of Haughton to
the spiritual aid of the parishes with large popu-
lations and scanty ministration. The bishop's an-
swer is, that he has given the living to a gentleman
whose talents, piety, and patient activity will con-
vinoe the parishioners that their interests have been
attended to.

But the interest of the thousand parishioners
would have been equally attended to by a rector
with the qualifications recited if his emoluments
had been fixed at half £1,300 a year, and the re-
mainder of that sum appropriated to the wants of
the 15,000 who arc so inadequately supplied with
pastoral care. The favoured gentleman, however,
was the bishop's chaplain, some say his son-in-law,
and what were the claims of 15,000 people weighed
against personal favour or connection ? And this
is the Bishop of Durham's method of exemplifying
the redoubled exertions he counsels to propagate
the Gospel of Christ, and thus counteract the false
teaching of the Oxford heretics.

It may be interesting to some of our readers to
know the names and positions of these much-reviled
writers of the " Essays and Reviews." They are the
Rev. Dr. Temple, Chaplain to the Queen, and
Master of Rugby; the Rev. Dr. Williams, Vice-
Principal, and Professor of Hebrew, St. David's
College, Lampeter ; Baden Powell, Savilian Pro-
fessor of Geometry in the University of Oxford ;
the ReV. H. B. Wilson; Vicar of Great Staughton,
Hants; C. W. Godwin, M.A.; the Rev. Mark
Pattison ; and. B. Jowett, Regius Professor of
Greek in the University of Oxford. Of these seven
Mr. Baden Powell has died since the publication of
the " Essays and Reviews," and Mr. Pattison has
been promoted to the Rectorship of Lincoln.
As all the writers have been included in one
sweeping censure dealt out as equal:y applicable
to each, it may be as well to mention that in a
notice to the reader it is distinctly stated that the
authors are responsible for their respective articles
only.
LA TV INTELLIG-ENCE, March 6.

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.)
THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA V. DAY.
It will be remembered that a few days since an
injunction was granted by Vice-Chancellor Stuart
restraining Messrs. Day from lithographing or
printing from plates, documents purporting to be
bank notes of the Naticnal Bank of Hungary, and
also restraining them from delivering any of such
notes to Louis Kossuth; who was one of the defen-
dants to the suit.
Mr. Wickens, on behalf of the defendants Messrs.
Day7and Mr. C. T. Simpson for Louis Kossuth,
now applied for leave to serve short notice of mo-
tion for an order for the plaintiff, the Emperor of
Austria, to find security for costs in the suit. It ap-
peared that the defendants' solicitors had applied
to the plaintiff's solicitor for security for costs, but
there had not been sufficient time for them to re-
ceive an answer to the application.
The Vice-Chancellor gave the defendants leave
to serve short notice of motion for Friday next.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
THE LORD MAYOR, &C., OF LONDON, AS GOVERNORS
OF ST. THOMAS HOSPITAL, V. THE CHARING-
CROSS RAILWAY COMPANY.
The Attorney-General moved this morning in
this suit to restrain the defendants, the railway
company, from taking proceedings for the summon-
ing of a jury to assess the value of a piece of land
and premises forming a portion of St. Thomas's
Hospital, adjacent to the railway terminus at Lon-
don-bridge. The object of this motion was to pre-
vent the carrying out of the Charing-cross Rail-
way scheme so far as it interfered with the hos-
pital and so far as its promoters proposed to take a
portion of the land or property thereof, unless
the company should. take the entire hospital.
It appeared that the company had given the com-
mon notice requiring the hospital to treat for the
sale of a portion of land and premises situate
at the corner of the hospital property. Upon
this the hospital governors gave a counter-notice
requiring the court to take the whole of the pro-
perty. The plaintiffs' ease was based upon the
well-known class of cases resting upon the section
requiring a railway company taking part of a house
or premises to take the whole, if the owners were
desirous that such be done. The governors had
opposed the company's bill before the committee of
the House of Commons, and in consequence of that
opposition clauses had been inserted in the bill
binding the company's trains to pass the hospital
at a rate of not more than six miles an hour, and
also binding them not to use the whistle within
certain fixed limits. The value of the entire hos-
pital was put by the plaintiffs at .£750,000.
Mr.' Rolt, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Baggallay, and Mr.
Macnaughten were with the Attorney-General.
Sir H. Cairns and Mr. Osborne on the other side
contended that the governors of St. Thomas's Hos-
pital were not able, even if willing, to convey to
the company. The contention on the other side
that they were able to convey was illusory, because
the Charity Commissioners, upon whose consent
they relied, had not any authority to give an as-
sent to the sale.

The Vice Chancellor said that the first point to
which he would advert was the question whether
tl_e land- and building with which the company
now proposed to interfere formed a portion of the
hospital within the meaning of the cases relied on
by the plaintiffs. It appeared that a wing, not
built at the time when the hospital received its
charter; would be affected by the proposed railway.
This wing was connected by a wall with the rest
the;huilding; taking the whole as au hospital it
formed an integral part of the establishment ; pa-
tients were liable to be moved there if convenient
from the other portion of the building. It seemed
to flow from this that the wing must form a por-
tion of the building viewed as a hospital, and must

therefore bring the case within those decisions
binding a company taking a part to take the whole
of ahy--"-honse, &c.," required by them. Then
came the question Whether. the charity was able to
sell. With regard to this it certainly was a ques-
tion as yet, so far as his Honour believed, unde-
termined, -whether a charity, upon a clear case
of necessity shown, could part with its land. In
a case in which he had been counsel on an applica-
tion for a private bill it was held by Lord Cran-
worth that no private bill was necessary to enable
a charity to dispose of its land, but on reference to
Lord Cottenham, who was then Lord Chancellor,
that learned lord thought the matter so far doubt-
ful that the bill had best be allowed to pass. Cer-
tainly the point was too doubtful a case to be de-
cided on an interlocutory application like the
present. But he thought that upon the true con-
struction of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act,
it did not arise, and that the governors of the hos-
pital were in a sufficient position to require the
purchase of the entire hospital by the plaintiffs.
The remaining argument was this, that a grant of
this injunction would in fact amount to the stoppage
of the entire scheme of the railway, and therefore
to a virtual repeal of the act of Parliament incor.
porating the company. But such did not appear to
his Honour necessarily to be the result of the success
of this motion ; for the company might sell the land
not required by them, and thus avoid the difficulty
in which they considered they etood by reason of the
great price asked by the governors of the hospital.
Upon the whole, therefore, he was of opinion that
the plaintiffs were entitled to the injunction which
they sought.