The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-06 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUMA C JOUR

GLOBE.—A paragraph headed " New Royal E
change" appears simultaneously in the morning papers,
emanating apparently from the joint Gresham and cor-
poration-arbiters of accommodation to the merchants of
London—with whom most of these Committee-men have,
we believe, little or nothing in common—and who most
unwisely deputed none of their body to watch these Wise
Men of the East, while the building was planning in
which their comfort was mainly concerned, but
in which shopocrat influence, and civic camaraderies,
have been preferred to the claims of commerce. We
should scarcely have noticed this apology for the
Committee, except for the cool impertinence of its
close. The memorial to them was signed by
such names as Messrs. Rothschild, Messrs. Baring,
Messrs. Heath and Co., Messrs. Huth and Co., and
many others of the first-rate merchants and brokers of
the City of London. The reply closes in the following
style of impertinence :—" The impression in the City
seems to be, that our merchants have become more
tender anti fastidious than their forefathers were, and
that though a covered Exchange might be agreeable at
this season, yet that in summer it would be quite intoler-
able." Pray who was the Royal Exchange built for, if not
for the merchants ? Who have a right to be " fas-
tidious" about their own Hall of Commerce, if not the
merchants ? For whose central site did Parliament
suppose itself voting 150,0002, in order that where they
"most do congregate," they should have ample room,
and a fit area ? As a mere matter of measurement,
how have this Committee provided this area ? The
present interior looks smaller than the old • and though
we believe it is not so, we believe also ;hat it is no
larger ; and we know, at all events, that the Committee
had before them a plan of much more suitable
dimensions. We believe we are correct in stating the
dimensions of the present open area at 6,613 feet, and of
the whole area, including the covered walks, at 18,256
feet. The available effect of this space is besides dimi-
nished by the exceeding clumsiness of separating (as it
were) the walks from the court by heavy arches instead
of columns—(the ponderous masses of masonry at each
of the four corners defy description). Now, in Mr.
Cockerell's plan, the extent of the open area was
7,250 feet—of the whole area, including the covered
walks, 19,316. Throughout the proceedings on this
building, every conceivable secondary object has been
consulted—only superseding the primary one. Thus a
prodigious deal has been made of the shops which are,
in fact, the leading feature of all its faces. And now
the Committee tell us of " the extensive uses of the area
of the Exchange as"—what do our readers sup-
pose ?—the first place of commercial assemblage in the
world ? Not a bit of it—but "as a thoroughfare to all
the neighbouring streets, the Bank, the Stock Exchange,
and the other important public and private buildings of
the neighbourhood." This object also was less obtru-
sively, and therefore more properly, provided for, in Mr.
Cockerell's plan, by a covered arcade, apart from the mer-
chants' are. The present interior is all thoroughfare—vast
gaping arches make most effective breaches from each
of the " neighbouring streets" for heaven's artillery to
sweep right across it. A due application of architectu-
ral skill would have combined suitable entrances with
suitable shelter ; and these, we repeat, as well as suit-
able dimensions, the Committee had placed before them;
and, for reasons best known to themselves, have erected
an Exchange, defective in all three.
STANDARD.—The requisition to propose a formal
condemnation of the tract No. 90, signed by nearly 500
members of Convocation was yesterday presented to the
Hebdomadal Board, when the Principal of Brazenose,
Doctor Harrington, and the Rector of Exeter,
Doctor Richards, sought to get rid of the pro-
position by a motion that it be taken into consi-
deration at six months' end. The discussion of the
amendment, which will probably find no supporters
but the two doctors named as its sponsors, was ad-
journed to this day. It may be remembered that, on a
former occasion, Doctors Harrington and Richards
addressed to us two sufficiently uncivil and impe-
rious letters, because we ventured to surmise that
they did not very much disapprove of the Tracta-
rian doctrines. Their present conduct, we think,
shows whether our intimation or their very fiat con-
tradiction of it "was nearest the truth ? But, per-
haps, they would be understood as having written
in a non-natural sense, when they denied their wish to
protect doctrines which they are now practically pro-
tecting. This non-natural sense, by the way, is one of
the prettiest euphemisms of modern invention ; what a
treasure would it have been to Mr. O'Connell for the
last forty years ? —ing " a fico for the phrase." Mr.
O'Connell was only speaking in the non-natural
sense, when he boasted the possession of a letter
from Mr. Patrick Eagan, of Moate, which letter was
never written ; and when he vouched Mr. David Mur-
phy, of Kilkenny, a gentleman, to whom the most pain-
ful heraldic researches can make no nearer approach than
as finding him brother to that Mrs. Harris, celebrated
in Mr. Dickens' " Martin Chuzzlessit." On these, and
ten thousand other occasions, Mr. O'Connell only spoke
in the n m-natural sense, when people, the Examiner
among others, applied a very ugly name to his mode of
" postponing truth to the purpose of the moment."
FROM THB EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—Let Sir Robert Peel alone for "turning
diseases to commodity !" He is quitted by a colleague
of whom it is not much to say that he was the sole re-
presentative in the Government of any one former prin-
ciple of its party, and moreover that he was Sir
Robert Peel's sole reliance in debate on many ques-
tions. One would have thought this (morally speaking)
a heavy blow, and a great discouragement. Sir Robert
Peel makes a merit of it ! He shows off Mr. Glad-
stone to the malcontent Irish Roman Catholics as a scape-
goat, whom he has driven into the wilderness, charged
with all the sins of his party. See what a prize Protestant
we have sacrificed !—what a credit to the flock we have
whistled down the wind. All for the love of the Irish Ro-
man Catholics !—all for the sake of "the Romish Church
in that country." In ourhumble judgment Lord J. Russell,
;n critiscising the mode of passing the Charitable Bequests
Act, instead of pressing too hard upon the Premier, let
him off too cheap. That Mr. Gladstone did so is not
surprising. As he did not mean to head a party against
his late chief, he could not gracefully go farther. But
we confess our surprise that the strongest point against
the party in power has been pressed so little ; especially
as that point is so salient that it cannot escape any eye.
The point we allude to is the flagrant inconsistency
of Sir Robert Peel's recent recognition of the Irish
Rumen ecclesiastics—not merely with the principles
of his party—with the professions of his past life—but
with the Emancipation Act, if not with the Act of Su-
premacy. The Oath of Supremacy, administered to
every candidate for a degree in the Dublin University,
affirms that the Roman Pontiff " hath not any ju-
risdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or autho-
rity, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm."
An " Ex-Scholar of Trinity College. Dublin," in
the Dublin Evening Mail, puts the question to Dr.
Radcliffe, Vicar- General of that Diocese—" Whe-
ther, on perusing the Charitable Bequests Bill
—and observing that the ecclesiastical functions of men
are therein recognised and ratified by British law,
which functions are only conferred, and can be only
conferred, by the Pope of Rome—and that the men
bearing those functions are, in virtue of their official
station, invested with certain powers under that Act
in this country—permit me, Sir, to ask whether you
choose to stake your official character on the pro-
priety of administering to candidates for degrees in
the University, an oath in which they swear," &c. &c.
We can conceive that the Ministerial advocates may
get over this inconsistency, on the plea that they recog-
nise the Roman Prelates, not as appointed by the Pope
—an appointment which they choose to know nothing of
—but as the de facto spiritual d gnitaries of the Roman
Catholic population of Ireland. They do not acknow-
ledge the right of the Pope to appoint, but the right of
the people to receive them ; and they recognise them
only in consequence of the function they find them really
holding. Well, we will let the Ministerialists off on the
Oath of Supremacy. But let us just look at the Act of
Emancipation By this Act, at all events, they built a wall,
which, in the Charitable Bequests Act, they have been
themselves first to run their heads against. The follow-
ing was a leading provision of the Act of Emancipation,
" for the peace and security of the Establishment and of
the Protestant religion :" —" Whereas the right and title
of archbishops to their respective provinces, of bishops
to their sees, and of deans to their deaneries, as well in
England as in Ireland, have been established by law;
Be it therefore enacted, that if any person, after the com-
mencement of this Act, other than the person thereunto
authorised by law, shall assume or use the name, style.
or title of archbishop of any province, bishop of any
bishopric, or dean of any deanery, in England or Ire-
land, he shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the
sum of 1001." Certainly no enactment could be devised
better fitted to bring the law into contempt. The Roman
Catholics consider their prelates as de jure bishops of
those very dioceses, whose t:tles Sir Robert Peel's Eman-
cipation Act forbade. them to assume under a heavy
penalty. Of course the titles were assumed ; and of
course the penalties were not enforced. But what be-
came of that respect for the law, so desirable to create in
Ireland? And what becomes of Sir R. Peel's own re-
spect for his own enactment ? He is its first signal
Protestant violator ! Ho is not content with having set
up an Act of Parliament, as a thing of straw, to be dis-
obeyed with impunity—he is not content without
signalizing his own scorn for it in another Act of Par-
liament. The Charitable Bequests Act recognises the
Roman titles which the Emancipation Act forbids.
Will it be said that those titles are neither recog-
lased as Roman nor local ? We will wave the
fot mer—we will suppose there is no breach of
the Act of Supremacy. 4' C'est une fiore supposition."
But that titles of bishops and archbishops always
suppose a " local habitation and name." Suppose Mr.
O'Connell Roman Catholic Mayor of Dublin in the face
of a Protestant legal one ; that the Act of Emancipa-
tion had imposed a fine of 100/. for assuming that
title; and that the Charitable Bequests Act had re-
cognised Mr. O'Connell as Lord Mayor —of
Nowhere ? The Dublin Pilot pushes this recog-
nition to exceedingly awkward consequences :
"Spiritual peerage was a creation of the law of Eng-
land, while England was yet Catholic—meaning by
spiritual peerage the title of Lord or Dominus, accom-
panied with the right of taking a part in the Legisla-
tive Council or Parliament of the natiollt Thp law con-
ferred this title and privilege on Catholic ecclesiastics,
virtuein of their }laving canonical consecration as
Fre-