The Sun.
London, England, 1868-07-15 00:00:00

METEOROLOGICAL REPORTS.

Extreme Bea
Wednesday, Ilra
July 15, B. T. 0 W. 1 to F. D. W R. to
8 a.m. ..- A 12 9
Nairn
Aberdeen
Leith
Shields ..
Scarborough 30'05f. 63 60 S.S.E. 1 2 E.N.E. c.fb 2
Yarmouth 3l'o6f. 65 63 N.N.E. 2 3 N. c.b. 2
Helder
Cuxhaven
Skudesna3s
Ardrossan
Greencastle 23 88f. 70 65 W.S.W. 1 1 E. b.c.
Holyhead
Liverpool
Valentia 29'94f. 63 61 S. 2 3 N. f.r. 2
Cape Clear 2o'92f. 66 64 S.W. 4 3 W. c. o. 3
ftoche's Pt. 29•976. 67 65 S.W. 2 3 8. b.c. 2
Penzance
l'imouth
IVeyinoutlt
29—.96f. -f,
Portsmouth 6-5 W.— S.W. --I
—3
N.E. -;. -- —1
London
UPeGrisNez 29'93f. 72 67 E.N.E. 1 c. 1
Brest
L'Orient .
Rochefort'
Biarritz
el
i c'r
ur us
snenl: .• : : : 2 T 97 69 -- N—. E . -- --
--
b. --
P a r i 8
Strasbourg — 69 S. 3 c.
Lyons
Toulon
II eart's Con-
tent (6 a.m.
local time) 30'255. 53 52 W. 1 1 N. b. I

THE APPLICATION FOR A CHARTER FOR
A CATHOLIC UiVIVERSITY.

The following is a letter from the Roman Catho-
lic prelates of Ireland :

TO THE RIGHT HON. THE EARL OF MAYO, 3r.r., CHIEF

SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.

My Lord,—Your letter of the 30th ult., laid
before Parliament this week, demands some notice
at our hands. After a long preamble it closes
with the declaration that "it is not the intention
of her Majesty's Government to take any further
steps in the matter" of a charter for a Catholic
University. Coupled with our denial of having
spoken or written a word implying a wish on our
part to break off the negociation on that subject,
this declaration of yours brings home to your Go-
vernment and yourself the responsibility of having
carried on the negociation for a time, and of having
then abruptly put an end to it. We should be
content to let the matter drop here without adding
another word were it not that, while declaring it
was not the intention of her Majesty's Government
to take any further steps in the matter, you hal
fallen into the singular inconsistency of seeking at
the same time to fasten upon us the responsibility
of your not proceeding any further. Accustomed
though we have become of late to an extraordinary
boldness of assertion on the part of public men,
we were not prepared for the statement, come from
whom it might, that we had to answer for the
abrupt termination of this business ; much less
could we have expected it to come from your lord-
ship, knowing as you did all that had passed be-
tween us, and, moreover, disdaining, as it is be-
lieved you would disdain, to have recourse• to the
petty devices upon which other men live. Yet,
strange to say, with all this knowledge, notwith-
standing that openness of nature for which you
get credit from opponent as well as friend, you
first hazarded in your place in Parliament the in-
sinuation that we, not you, had broken off the
negociation respecting the Catholic University
question ; and you now repeat it with full delibera-
tion in the face of our declaration that it is not
we, and even of your own admission that it is you,
who have determined to take no further steps in
the matter. That you should take no further steps
in the matter, whether because you despair of its
issuing in anything satisfactory, or whether, as
sharp critics will have it, because it has failed to
secure for your party a certain amount of Parlia-
mentary support—that from these or other mo-
tives, best known to yourself and Mr. llisraeli,
you should have brought our negociation to a
sudden stop, is not what we complain of—let the
public judge of that—but what we do complain of
is, that having done so you seek, and very per-
sistently, to shift the responsibility from yourself
upon us. Like the retreating Parthian, you try to
wound as you fly, and, therefore, you cannot ex-
pect at our hands all the forbearance we should
wish to show towards a generous opponent.

And upon what reasons do you rest the insinua-
tion that it is we who broke off the negotiation ?
Upon two, which are of such a nature that if one
be admitted as a legitimate plea, the other is in-
admissible, for each excludes the other, as we shall
see. Your first reason is deduced from Dr. Leahy's
having, in a letter dated May 16, simply acknow-
ledged yours of the 11th of May, coupled with our
having allowed the time betwixt the 17th and the
29th of May, say eleven days, to elapse without
giving any intimation of our desire to continue the
correspondence. This is your first plea. Now,
your lordship will give us leave to say we are
utterly at a loss to comprehend by what process of
reasoning you could have inferred from those cir-
cumstances that we had closed the correspondence.
The letter of simple acknowledgment was identical
in form with your own letter of the 26th of October,
1867, which, so far from being considered by you
as stopping, on the contrary, opened the way to
further correspondence. Here are the two letters
side by side, one of which in your estimation was
a bar to all further correspondence, the other the
very reverse.
Lord Mayo to the Most The Most Rev. Arch-
Rev. 1)r. Leahy. bishop Leahy to the
Chief Secretary's Office, Earl of Mayo.
Dublin Castle, Ballymore House, near
Oct. 26, 1867. Cashel, May 16, 1868.
Most Rev. Sir, I My Lord, —I have the
have the honour to ac- honour to acknowledge
knowledge the receipt of the receipt of your letter
your letter of the 23rd of the 11th instant, re-
instant, enclosing a copy specting the changes in
of a letter which you your plan of a Catholic
have addressed to the University suggested by
Earl of Derby on the the Right Rev. Dr.
subject of university Derry and myself.—l
education. —I have, &c. have, &c„
(Signed), (Signed),
MAvo. PATRICK LEAKY,
Archbishop, &c.

Moreover, that you should have taken the letter
of the 16th of May as one of simple acknowledg-
ment, and no more —certainly as not closing our
correspondence—is obvious from its bearing only
the signature of the Most Rev. Dr. Leahy ; where-
as, in a previous letter of his of the 10th March
he had given you clearly to understand he could
do nothing without the concurrence of the Right
Rev. Dr. Derry. Here are his words :—" I should
at once have replied to your lordship's letter but
that, in any dealing or explanation with the govern-
ment respecting this question, I am associated
with a brother prelate, the Right Rev. Dr. Derry ;
whence it was my duty to apprise him of the com-
munication 1 had the honour to receive from your
lordship." How, after this, could you have
imagined Dr. Leahy had taken upon himself to
close the correspondence in his own name alone
and upon his own single responsibility ? Then, as
to the lapse of eleven days without any intimation
that we wished to continue the correspondence,
why you yourself allowed more than three times
eleven days, from March 31 to May 11, to pass
over without returning an answer to our letter of
the 31st of March, and yet you did not consider
that interval of time as sufficient to foreclose the
discussion. A silence of eleven days on our part
was to be taken as indicating that there was an
end to all further discussion ; but a silence of more
than three times eleven days on your part was not
to be taken as any such indication. Admirable
reasoning !

Having disposed of your first reason for having
concluded and announced in Parliament on the
29th of May last that we had broken off the negocia-
tion, we pass over your long history of what took
place between us as only enveloping the real ques-
tion in a cloud of words, and we come to the one
other reason which you say helped to land you in
your conclusion. What is it? The conflicting
nature of the principles involved in your plan of a
Catholic university, and the principles in your letter
of the 31st March. Now, it will be observed, what-
ever be the value of this argument, it cannot be put
in as a plea along with the first one. Either must
be abandoned, if the other be held. The one says
you conclude we had given up the correspondence
from the letter of simple acknowledgment,
coupled with the lapse of eleven days allowed to
pass over without a renewal of it. The other
says—" No ; it was quite another thing that
made you conclude we had declared off—namely,
the antagonism between your principles and ours,
which, however, revealed itself fully at our personal
interview, and did not require your waiting for
eleven days—no, not for one day—to understand
its full bearing on the question. If it was the con-
flicting nature of the principles involved that pro-
duced your conviction, then it was not the letter of
simple acknowledgment with the eleven days'
silence; but, if it was that letter and that silence
that wrought upon your in:nd, then it was not the
conflicting nature of our principles, seen at our
personal interview, not requiring a day's waiting to
be seen, that made you believe we had indeed de-
clared off. Whatever the value of your two rea-
sons taken separately, both together are clearly in-
admissible. They cannot stand together.
But let us see whether this your second plea does
in reality carry with it any more weight than your
first—let us see whether, indeed, the conflict be-
tween your principles and ours was of such
a nature that, on or about the 27th of May,
and not before, it brought home to you the
conviction, and drew from you the announce-
ment in your place in Parliament, that by

reason of the incompatibility of the principles
held on both sides, we had finally rejected the
proposal of Government, and terminated the nego-
tiation. If the conflict between our principles and
yours convinced you on or about the 27th of May
that there was an end of the businsss, surely it was
equally convincing on the 11th of May, when you
wrote your letter of that date rejecting our suggest•
tions ; and yet you tell us that notwithstanding
the then manifest conflict of our principles, you
then, on the 11th of May and after, did still look
forward to and were waiting for some further cor-
respondence between us, and did not give up all
hope of it till after the receipt of the letter of
simple acknowledgment and the expiration of the
fatal eleven days. Again, if on or about the 27th
of May the conflict between our views and princi-
ples precluded all hope of our coming to a mutual
understanding, and made you think we neither had
nor would have anything more to say, we beg
to ask you were not the principles put forward by
us on both sides at our interview in London
precisely the same ? Did not the same
divergency between them then reveal itself ?
Did you not then comprehend their full drift and
bearing on the question before us ?—and yet you
then asked us to commit our view to writing for
further consideration. The conflicting nature of
our views did not at that time in your estimation pre-
clude ulterior discussion nor precipitate the end of
the negotiation. Why should it afterwards, on the
27th of May ? The only differen.ce that supervened
being that principles put forward viva voce at our
personal interview were subsequently committed
to writing, though they still remained the same.
So much, my lord, for the reasons by which you
seek to shift over from yourself upon us the mis-
carriage of the Catholic university scheme. In truth,
the position you have taken is altogether indefens-
ible ; and your line of defence, instead of covering,
only serves to reveal its utter weakness. And we
beg to assure you we mean more of respect than the
contrary for your personal character when we add
that the position you have taken up is not only
weak, but unworthy of one such as you. Retire
from it, my lord, and leave it to some one who has
no character to lose.
In the fullest confidence of the truth of the aver-
ment, we repeat, my lord, what we asserted in a
former letter. It is not we who rejected your plan,
but it is you who rejected every one of the sugges-
tions you had invited us to make, and which you
thoroughly understood when you asked us to com-
mit them to writing. It is not we who abruptly
put an end to our negotiation—it is you. It is not
we who have to answer for its having ended
in worse than nothing—it is you.. It is not we who
have sought to throw over upon others any respon-
sibility that rested upon ourselves—it is you who
have sought to shift upon us what justly attaches
to yourself and your Government. Let the public
judge between us.—We have the honour to be, my
lord, your lordship's obedient servants,
t PATRICK LEAIIY, Archbishop, &c.
f JOHN DERRY, Bishop.
Thurles, July 11, 1868.

yL :. k
..,„„
tilli ri 5-.***W' QII algal:
-A,_....1717-4.4..

HER MAJESTY.

OSBORNE, July 14.

The Queen, accompanied by Prince and Princess
Louis of Hesse, Prince and Princess Christian, Prin-
cess Louise, Prince Leopold, Princess Beatrice, the
Princess Leiningen, and the Duke and Duchess Of
Coburg, visited the Galatea in Osborne Bay yester-
day afternoon.

The Queen was met on board by his Royal High-
ness the Prince of Wales,who arrived shortly before
from London.

Her Majesty remained on board for upwards of
an hour, and soon after seven o'clock landed in the
Duke of Edinburgh's barge at Osborne pier.

Her Majesty, accompanied by Prince and Prin-
cess Louis of Hesse, Princess Louise, and Princess
Beatrice, walked in the grounds this morning.

HEALTII OF THE PRINCESS OF WALES.
(THIS DAY).

The following bulletin was issued this mow

ing :

" Marlborough House, July 15.
" Her Royal Highness and infant Princess Are

going on perfectly well.
" ARTHUR FARRE, M.D.
" EDWARD li. SIEVEKING, M.D."

THE CHURCH OF ST. THOMAS OF

CANTERBURY IN ROME.

In a letter read in the Catholic churches anci
chapels throughout the Archdiocese of Westminste
on Sunday last the Archbishop says :
" The motives which constrain us to this vireric
are many :-
1. The first stone was laid by the hand of the
Holy Father in token of his paternal affection
to the English College and to his English el'''.
dren.
2. The Church of St. Thomas, which fa
centuries stood beside the English College, Iclicoo
destroyed when the French revolutionary 'Wit
entered Rome. The duty of restoring the
national Church rests upon all English Catholic'
Those only who through poverty are unable to
i
contribute are exempt from this filial obligati%
Every leading nation of Christian Europe, exle
England, has its national Church in Rome.
are bound to restore ours, the foundations of Will°
have been already laid.
°Pe
3. Every leading nation of Catholic BO e
has some college or establishment iu 13,1136
and maintains it with care and liberality. 04
English College and the Church of St. Theraa
are a historical monument of Catholic 1117..5
land. The Church records our most glerl
martyr, who laid down his life for our spirittioici
liberties. The College has sent forth into EnglB.o.
for three centuries a perpetual succession of sr
voted priests, of whom five-and-forty were 0
tyred for the faith.
clef'
No one, I am confident, will so fail to 1-111
ith
stand the motives of this work as to treat it Wig
indifference, or to regard it as the mere acl"joo
of one more church to the many which exist
Rome.
The duties which the Catholics Of England oar
to the Holy See, to the ancient shrine of deg,
glorious martyr, to the noblest of our Collei%o
sacred for the memory of so many martyr
eg
suffered in preserving the faith to us, as -
Qhovi
our gratitude to the Holy Father from well
England bas received such spiritual blessingso,
alike constrain us to do what we may in the
pleting a work which will stand for ever iii 0
centre of Catholic Unity as a memorial °. 01
fidelity and filial obedience of the Ca,thell
England.

'
MISS SHERIDAN CAREY.—In a recent 11 030/)w'
of All the Year Round there appeared a charrnioght 06;
entitled " Blossom and Blight," from the poll °f t;
complished lady, a poem commemorating with F'l3:t,oo;
pathetic tenderness the miserable old age and €lo3t;%4llPe;
squallid garrets of a crowded city, of a group to; 0-g
men and women, whose early years wero passo'.,oreose;
green countryside, or as the refrain beautifully e''io tl3-
it--" Who were born where the apple tree bloorill
spring." We would gladly have quoted the .svh°fe-9110
but for its length and 'our crowded columns ;
e'-
be repaid, however, by the pleasure of its Ps ".
ptv
turning to the number of All the Tear Round for
day, the 4th inst. je
The annual collection for the Pope N 0511,130
Sunday in the Roman Catholic chureace iri=r
ei
chapels of Dublin and its neighbourhood. fr
Peter's Pence Confraternity addressed the has
and mention that since their foundation tholo
" laid at his feet about £35,000, of Svhicst fel
£3,400 has been collected during the law jecr
months when his temporal dominion W 34,00. ie
partly." With the address they send i',.hat t`o
replying, the Sovereign Pontiff rejoices in the,
" laudable faith and religion of Ireland are;
latter days, acquiring a new effulgence."