The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-18 00:00:00

SOUTH EASTERN LINE.

This Committee met yesterday at Twelve o'clock, in
Commits, Sub-room No. 4, Sir W. Heathcote in the shah.

The first question argued before the Committee by the
petitioners against this line was, that the contracts were bad,
inasmuch as that the money subscribed had been burrowed
money, and not the money of the parties themselves.
The Committee decided that they had nothing whatever
to do with the question.
MAIDSTONE AND ROCHESTER LINE.

The Committee decided that the standing orders in this
line had been complied with.

TUNBRIDGE WELLS LINE.

In this line it was decided by the Committee that the
standing orders had not been complied with.
ASHFORD AND HASTINGS LINE.
Standing orders not complied with.
DEAL EXTENSION LINE.

In this case the Committee declared that the standing
-..rders had been complied with.
LONDON AND GREENWICH LINE.

In this case the Committee found that the standing orders
had not been complied with.

SPIRIT of the tiUBLIU JOURNALS.

FROM TUE EVENING PAPERS 4)F YESTERDAY

GLOBE.—The Tory supporters of the Maynooth Bill (we
now speak only of those) chiefly patronise two lines of argu •
ment—one cheap and easy—the other in a very high degree
damaging and dangerous. It is cheap and easy to deride
fanaticism, and condemn calling the Pope " AntOchrist." These
may be fit answers to ignorant declaimers, but not to calm
critics. They may be answers to those who would deny all
large measures of justice to Roman Catholics ; but not
to those who think themselves at liberty to question the
structure or the source of this one small one. We should no
more adopt the Biblical Billingsgate, of calling his Holiness
the Pope " Antichrist," than enlightened Roman Catholics
would approve the Tablet in almost calling Mr. Sheil "Anti-
christ," because he expresses some sort of esteem for the
Church of England. the other Tory line of argument—
the damaging one—is that which, as we have said, has been
most practised by those Members on the Ministerial side,
who have hazarded any wide range of argument at all.
What a damaging speech was Lord John Manners', to the
Ministerial party, as regards the consequences of the n ea
sure which lie accepts and contemplates. It would be un-
fair to say that those consequences are contemplated by its
supporters generally ; but it is quite fair to say that such
anticipations, from that section of Anglican churchmen, who
have recently won themselves a " bad eminence" (as regards
public opinion in England) are enough to warrant alarm
in all who still call themselves Protestants ; and to demon-
strate (if the will of churchmen like Lord John Manners
were seconded by the power) how soon all that constitutes
Protestantism—all independent and private judgment—
would be crushed under the Juggernaut wheels of
Church idols—irresponsible clerical powers. It is these,
as we have said, that constitute Popery—we care not one
single button whether their future head-quarters should
be established at Rome or Lambeth—or rather, if we do
care, it is merely because Rome combines the dangerous
qualities of irresponsible spiritual dictatorship with the
subtlety, and foreign standing room, of an Italian Court.
To that extent, we maintain " No Popery" is a rational ral-
lying word—to that extent every vigorous prince in our history
inscribed it on his banners ; and it was left for a soft scion of
the " old nobility," misrepresented by him, to find out that
the way to manage Rome is to admit, and exaggerate; its
" tremendous power " That power is a power founded on
moral weakness in those who truckle to it. None of the great
States of Europe do ; but if Lord John Mannerses fishify our
flesh, we shall. We repeat, that Protestants would have
a right to be alarmed (were the champions a shade
more vigorous) at the new-old notions of exclusive Catho-
licity (a contradiction, by the way, in terms) which these
Young Englanders would import from college cloisters
into political affairs. Catholicity is asserted by Rome of
herself solely—and by these young gentlemen of Rome and
England. Until we force ourselves into Roman alliance (an
alliance which Rome disclaims, and knows of nothing but re-
bellion or subjection to her authority)—until we do
this impossible, we " separate ourselves from the
whole of Catholic Christendom"—Catholic Christendom,
according to these fancy churchmen, not including
the Scotch, German, or American Churches of any
model but our own—and, according to Rome, just as
little including the Greek Church, and the English Church.
This will-o'-the-wisp if we pursue properly, in couples with
those who won't couple with us, Lord John Manners almost
engages " to render England again what she was once, the
queen of the nations, towering aloft amid the empires
of the world, striking her roots down deep and
wide into the richest memories of the past, and spreading
her fruitful branches to the measureless expanse of an un-
seen futurity." It is difficult to nail Young Englanders
(gentlemen who seem resolved never to get older) to any-
thing in the nature of facts and dates. if we could hope to
do so, we should ask Lord John Manners which is the
happy era he refers to, when England was once " the
queen of nations ?" We, however, partly learn when
it was net. " Those who liked," said this young Old.
Noble, " might refer all the glory and renown of old
English monarchy back to the Dutch conquest of 1688,
which subverted it, but he claimed a right to ascend higher,
and to consider it just as if William 111. had died Stadthol-
der of Holland." If William 111. had died Stadtdolder of
Holland, Louis XIV. bad very handsome prospects
of adding England to his European dependencies.
We are sorry to learn that Somers and Marlbo-
rough did nothing for England's greatness—but let that pass.
How far back are we to go for times truly imperial? William
and Mary won't do. Will Philip and Mary do ? Cer-
tainly not Elizabeth, erroneously supposed to have done Eng-
land some credit. That heretical drubbing of the Invincible
Armada, doubtless aided by le diable, qui nova les autres—
separated us sadly from " the whole of the Catholic Chris-
tendom." Shame, shame on the son of England who reads
her annals through priests' spectacles! England, to have
retained her greatness in Lord Manners' eyes—must have
lost it. She must have first tyrannised, then stagnated, like
Spain—must have lain in cold obstruction, and rotted, beneath
her Jesuits and her Inquisition. Truly, Austrian and Bourbon
Charleses and Philips, who preserved that monarchy, were
other guess people from Dutch William, who subverted this
one. There can be no doubt that the " monarchy" would
have flourished vastly under Kirke and his lambs, under
Jefferies and his juries, under the pupil of Father Petre, the
introducdi of standing atmies, the royal restorer of Oxford
back to thir-bosom of" Catholicity." Why will these boys
provoke us thbeselemembrances? We will be provoked
no further by therh:
STANDARD.—The debate on the Maynooth grant was
once more adjourned last night. The best speeches delivered
in last night's discussion were those of Mr. G. Hamil-
ton, Member for Dublin University, and Lord Ashley
against the Bill, that of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer in its support. Mr. Hamilton, who is, indeed,
a fine contrast to his colleague in talent, as in all
else, judiciously for his purpose seized upon the mis-
chievous arguments of Mr. Gladstone and M--
founded upon the duty of religious ....caulay,
disposed of them, pat the— - —aence, and easily
• .7. ,--- are not the arguments upon

which the real friends of the Protestant faith found their
support of the Bill. We must ever approach Lord Ashley
as an opponent with the greatest diffidence, and we have
given, we trust, sufficient proof that no difference of
opinion can ever impair our veneration for his noble
character. On the question now before the public,
it is our misfortune to differ from Lord Ashley, but
as his Lordship has reminded us, not fa- the first time,
Though sixteen years have intervened. Lord Ashley was a
party to the granting of power to the Roman Catholic popu-
lation in Ireland. We trust that we need not say what part
we acted upon that occasion. Lord Ashley too, as he
stated last night, was not, like the Minister, an unwil-
ling giver in 1829, and he seems still to adhere to
the wisdom of that most unhappy gift, irrespective of
the temporary necessity, which is the real justi •
fication of the Duke of Wellington's Cabinet. His
Lordship says that in 1829 he assisted to give freedom of
action to the Roman Catholics; as if they had not, as a
body, far more freedom of action before the Emancipation
Act than they have had since. His Lordship, no doubt, (lid
give freedom of action to the Roman Catholic priests with
a vengeance, as has been proved by their power of driving
electors to the hustings and to monster meetings—
as has been proved by their extortion of hundreds
of thousands of pounds from the most miserable population
of Europe to bribe lay agitators, and millions upon millions
for themselves—the priests. Yes, ample freedom of action
was given to the priests, but to the Roman Cat holic popu •
lation, such freedom of action as is enjoyed by the cattle
driven to Smithfield, and the sheep shorn tk the quick.
Once mistaken, even if not still under a delusion
upon a matter so important, Lord Ashley may be mistaken
again ; and, indeed, even in the matter of fact his Lordship
is plainly misinformed. Generally in his speech the Noble
Member fbr Dorsetshire rates the Irish Protestants as below
one million ; and, in one calculation, actually rates
their number as less than half a million. The truth
being, that the Irish Protestants are in number
much nearer to three than to two millions. We rejoice to
cite these inaccuracies, because they prove that one who
always feels rightly and always reasons rightly when his
premises are sound, forms an erroneous judgment, solely be-
cause he is mi :informed. Lord Ashley, again, says that if he
voted for the Bill before the Ifinise of Commons, he
must feel hound in honour to follow up the vote
by voting for the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy ;
because he could not think of educating men to qualify them
fir a certain rank without maintaining them in that rank.
What does Lord Ashley say to all our public schools, in all
gradations of rank ? Take a medium school—tke
Blue-eoat School, in Newgate-street. Are all the boys
educated in that noble establishment annuitants for
lite upon its funds? Has any such princi, le as that r sserted
by Lord Ashley ever been admitted as a condition upon the
gift of education? And here let as parenthetically remark,
that in considering the Maynooth Bill as arything less
than a part of a general system of education, much
too narrow a view is taken of the religious as well as the po-
litical bearing of the subject. The religious grounds upon
which the question is opposed. carried to their legitimate ex-
tent, would withhold all education from all Roman Ca-
tholics, lest they should read the Breviary or the Cate-
chism of Trent. We are not, however, afraid to teach
Roman Catholics to read, even though the first use they will
probably make of the power will be to read Roman Catholic
books, because we know that with the power of reading these
books, we give them the power also of reading the
Bible. Apart from this consideration, Lord Ashley
may be perfectly at ease upon the point of honour.
There is no danger of the Roman Catholic priests being edu-
cated above their means of living. On the average, the Ro-
man Catholic priests, single men, living in the very cheapest
country of her Majesty s European dominions, have " in
moneys numbered', larger incomes than the highly-
educated English clergy from Oxford and Cambridge,
far higher incomes than the clergy educated at Trinity Col-
lege, Dublin. As to any other reason why the grant to
Mavnooth must be followed by an endowment of the
Roman Catholic clergy, we are wholly at a loss to
guess at it. We are quite persuaded, too, that not one
of twenty who support the Ministerial Bill acknow-
ledges the obligation in honour to which Lord Ashley
refers, and of course they who, upon principle, oppose
the grant to Maynooth of 17,0001., are not very likely to
approve of a grant of two millions or two millions and a half
to the Roman Catholic clergy ; and less would not compen-
sate to them their present revenue.

Nimovalaseawawakw~mmerawormwmawmpaeumeroP't
multitudes, they denounce doctriUes as false and imarrs
they do not give admission to a shade of hostile feel-
ing towards those by whom the doctrines are held. WO
do not know how far this blending of the ficrcen
. gks
of zal and the mildness of charity can take I'le(di
in our frail human nature, but it will hardly be detv
that the hot No-Popery invectives, in which members (.
the Tory party are and have been so much seen
turned to indulge, do produce irritation and bad
feeling in Ireland. If the tone of Exeter-hall o°,le
unfortunately become so prevalent as to appear tui:
tone of the English people, and to govern the decb
sion of the House of Commons, we really dc not knew
what arguments the connexion between the two co t"
is to be maintained. By " shrapnell and grape'sh%
the thing may, no doubt, he done; but it will not ,beirio..
to the honour of our Christianity if we should ever ha"
to think of such means.—Chronicle.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Aprill'.
(Sittings in Banco.)
WILSON . .
Mr. Sergeant MullPxY v
movedROBINSON for a rule to '-'"f°ift
cause why the verdict in this case, which paid of
the defendant, should not be set aside on the grog"
(Mr. Jus," t
te
misdirection on the part of the Learned Judge
Wiglitman), before whom the case was tried a till, 'ld
assizes for Durham. The defendant and a pers°,.,ll ,11;„sion.
Tinmouth were part owners of a vessel called the ttou'i ed,
On the 27th of April, 1843, the partnership was
the defendant having purchased Tinmouth's eharheleet.
the usual way. The letter which was the sn"isth
matter of the present case, was written on the
uti,
of August, 1i43, was by the defendant to Tin° °
and in that letter the defendant stated that and
plaintiff had destroyed property to tile amount of 22,6":,uth.
embezzled part of the cargo at Holyhead and Fau" to
The Learned Judge left it to the jury to
vt,
whether this letter was not a confidential cotneihnich
cation from the plaintiff to his partner, in WO
the matter complained of was introduced aceidenio,
without a view of imputing anything malicious to the P iQ
tiff. The Learned Sergeant contended that his Lordito,
was wrong in leaving the question to the jury in Tin'
was disso v
in
ner, as the partnership b, tween Robinson and lin'''.
%CM dissolved four months before the letter was writteu•
Rule refused.

TUE QUEEN V. .
Mr. KELLY was about to move fO
orPER a rule in this -le:
which was an indictment for libel, preferred against theo;
Pendant at the instance of the Rev. Joshua ~tea
published in the Liverpool Chronicle, when it was sofb dot
by Lord Denman that it was better to wait till the defer
was brought up for judgment. •
soLostogas v. rAwamt. wbicl
This was a case of libel against the Times newsPaPer'ha'atP
was tried at the last assizes for Surrey, in which the P
obtained a verdict to the amount of 5001. damage& in the
The case originated in some letters which appear__,,'gerl
Times, respecting the state of health in which the PaL7„--ce of
of the ship Moffat arrived in this 'country, in consetPittei
the badness of the water supplied to her from a vessel, !sir
the P
up, as was alleged, with copper tanks, belonging to
tiff, who is an hotel-keeper in St. Helena. Veal
Mr. Sergeant SURE now moved for a rule for a renosice
novo, or for an arrest of judgment, on accountr-ot. &IC
damages.—Rule granted on the latter ground.

45 0 32 2
45 1 32 2
45 5 32 4
45 10 32 4
45 5 32 3
46 3 32 5

21 7
21 4
21 8
21 5
21 4
20 9

30 5
31 1
30 5
32 0
29 6
30 6