The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-17 00:00:00

Zbirb Xlvition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock,

LONDON, OXFORD, CHELTENHAM, and
GLOUCESTER RAILWAY (DIRECT LINE).
l'fospc.ctuses, announcing a highly influential Local Direction for
carrying out the above important undertaking, will be published
Immediately.
Applications to be made to Messrs. Bridges and Mason, solicitors,
Red Lion-square.
London, April 17, 1845.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
SOUTH EASTERN LINE.
This Committee met this morning at Twelve o'clock. in
Comraitte:Sub-room No. 4, Sir W. Heathcote in the chair.
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 borrowed
money, and not the money of the parties themselves.
The Committee decided that they had nothing whatever
to do with the question.
MAIDS TONE 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
orders had been complied with.
LONDON AND GREENWICH LINE.
In this case the Committee found that the standing orders
had not been complied with.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
SOLOMONS V. LAWSON.
This was a case of libel against the Times newspaper, which
was tried at the last assizes for Surrey, in which the plaintiff
obtained a verdict to the amount of 500/. damages.
The case originated in some letters which appeared in the
Tim,s, respecting the state of health in which the passengers
of the ship Moffat arrived in this :country, in consequence of
the badness of the water supplied to her from a vessel, fitted
up, as was alleged, with copper tanks, belonging to the plain-
tiff, who is a n hotel-keeper in El. Helena.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE now moved for a rule for a venire de
novo, or for an arrest of judgment, on account of excessive
damages.—Rule granted on the latter ground.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAT.
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 "Antichrist." 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. Shell "Anti-
christ," because he expresses some sort of esteem for the
Church of England. The other Tory line of orgament—
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 mea
sure which he 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 lett 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 Earope 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
hereelfsolely—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 seeder 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-
fixing 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. had 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 noya les autres—
separated us sadly from "the whole of the Catholic Chris-
tendom." Shame, shame on the son of England who reads
ber 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
introducer of standing armies, the royal restorer of Oxford
back. to the bosom of" Catholicity." Why will these boys
provoke us to these remembrances? We will be provoked
DO further by them.
~STANDXRD.—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 Macaulay,
founded upon the duty of religions [indifference, and easily
dimposed or them. But these are riot 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 difl'er from Lord Ashley, but
US his Lordship has reminded us, not for the first time,
though sixteen years have intervened. Lord Ashley was a
parts- 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 Le seems still to adhere to
the wisdom of that most unhappy gift, irrespective of
the temporary necessity, which is the real justis
tication of the Duke of Wellington's Cabinet. His
Lordship says that in 1829 lie assisted to give freedom of
action to the Roman Catholics; as if they had not, as a
hody, far more freedom of action before the Emancipation
Act than they have had since. His Lordship, no doubt, did
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—
W 4 has been proved by their extortion of hundreds
of thousands of pounds from the most miserable population
o 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 Catholic popu-
lation, such freedom of, action as is enjoyed by the cattle
driven to Smithfield,
the sheep shorn to the quick.
once mistaken, evenanlif not still under a delusion
upon a matter so important, L Ashley may be mistaken
again ; arid, indeed, even
_in' the matter of fact his Lordship
is plainly misinformed.
Generally in his speech the Noblelow
Member for Dorsetshire rates the Irish Protestants as be
one million ; and, in one calculation, actually rates
nT The
numbertriitli
their number as less than half
bein‘a,,, that the Irish Protestant million'
Ire rejoice to
much nearer to three than to two millions
rite these inaccuracies, because they prove
always feels rightly and always reasons rit onenwhir„
premises are sound, forms an erroneous judgilleeS. y wshiseiS, I,s-
cause he is raj:Unformed. Lord Ashley, again saisstliatifT
voted for the Bill before the House of, Commons, he
must feel hound in honour to follow up the vote
by voting for the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy
i,ecause lie could not think of educating men to qualify
them;
for a cestain 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—the '
.clue-coat School, in Newgate-street. Are all the boys
educated in that noble establishment annuitants for
life upon its funds? Has any such principle as that asserted
by Lord Ashley ever been admitted as a condition upon the
gift of education ? Arid here let as parenthetically remark,
that in considering the Maynooth Bill as anything less
than a part of a general system of education, much
zoo narrow a view is taken of the religious as well as the po-
litical hearing 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 n'Pht. 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 t the power also of reading the
Bible. Apart fro iteration, Lord Ashley
point of honour.
may be perfect at.:es
There no dun r. Rolllllllc, '..dernriests being edu-
cated above th r ofliving. On the average, the Ro-
e men, living in the very cheapest
Ro-
man Catholic a uropeudominions, have
.
country et

J.l;
-
-

'v