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

views, no apologists for any errors or indiscretion
which may fairly be imputable to them, 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 gravest 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 Bishops on any one of the points at issue, although
it is perfectly well known that on these points many of the
Bishops are widely at variance with each other, 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 seized 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
jubeo, 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 Times
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's letter on
this subject we quoted kis 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-
vinse 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 are so inadequately supplied with
pastoral care. The favoured gentleman, however,
was the bishop's chaplain, some say his siziwin-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, Lanapeter ; 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, DMA.; 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 equally 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 w INTELLIGENCE, 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 National 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.
Day, and 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, Y. 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' case 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 his 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
the 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
of the building ; taking the whole as an 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
Lion of the blildino viewed as a hospital, and must •