The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-01 00:00:00

. •rs su.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS

rat)3l Tttx LVENINO .7-erees cte. tesrcrinae.
GLOBE.—We Bete inserted elsewhere the views of
a corn spondeetlavourable to the proposed alaynomlt
grant ; end we have no intention of eseleding !rem our
eoluteei's any considerations which can fairly be urged
Its favour. At the same time, we must still be of
Opinion that neither is the proposed mode of aro-
"Ming . as can be satisfactory to the
nullifies opinion of this country, nor its extent satis-
factory to these it Is intended to satisfy. As to
tips proposed mode of proceeding, ae should very
"Ineett Wish to be informed wl;ethee th:re is soy pre-
teeleet fir a large and permanent public endowment,
without reserving to the public any power of inspecting
or superintending its application? The Rumen Ca.
thelic hierarchy may please t 3 assert its independence
of any ?Inch jurisdiction, while it- receives no public
aid. But the preponderant sense of the nation is d.s•
tinetly adverse to every inperitim in imperio— to every
I,retensien, on the part or any communion, to borrow
the ertular arm, or aid, without admitting the secular
authority. This was recently proved by the failure
of the Scottish Non.intrusionists in their appeal to
the general opinion—so far as regarded their attempt
to set th, mselvcs above the power of the civil courts.
We are now told that the Irish Roman Catholic
Churchmen distrust the civil authority eo completely.
that they will not take any grant at its hands, unless
the application of that grant is to be wholly removed
from its cognisance. Now these ecclesiastics may dis-
trust the State on party or general grounds. If they
distru-t Sir Robert Peel's party so thoroughly that his
beaux aeux caneot win them to any other request
than Jaques'—" I do desire we may he better
strangers"—we can only say it is a pity the chief of
such a party should undertake permanent endow-
ments, though compelled to concede them, without
the slightest security for their right emplevaaent
again, they distrust Government simply as Government
—simply because they claim that teierarchical indepen-
dence no country in Europe kdmits any longer, and no
country in Europe has rejected more signally than our
own—then S;:e Robert Peel is sacrificing to his new-
born ardfnir of conciliation the whole moral conquest of
the.leest three centuries—the e hole decisive distinction
between the dark ages and modern times. Will it be
said that the Maynooth system has proved, in all points,
so unexceptionable as to warrant enlarging and stereo.
typing it, without any security for improvement,
and requiting the most declared distrust with the
most unconditional confidence 'r Will this be said ?
We shall wait to hear it said from the present
official benches. We shall wait to hear it said by the
former colleagues of the Eldons and Percevals. Our
objections to the project are founded on no bigotry
against Roman Catholics. We object to it be-
cause (as hitherto advised) it appears to us based on
a false principle. It proposes to place public property
beyond public control,—to bestow (pro lanto) an lade-
pond, nt footing, at the public expense, on a body of
men who refuse recognition to the authority which en-
dows them—who reject that control (which indeed it is
not made worth their while to ackn)wledge, but) the
acknowledgment of which every other Power in Europe
exacts in return for patronage of any body of men en-
trusted with the discharge of any public function.
- STANDARD.—We have copied from yesterday's
Examiner an excellent article upon the subject ef the
trial, conviction, and punishment of the miscreant
Tawell. We hope that the reasoning of this article will
not be without just influence upon the minds of all
who may be celled to act as judges or jurors upon the
trial of similar eases. The Examiner has at least
satisfied U 3 that the murder of Sarah Hart was
suggested by the monstrous acquittal of a party prose-
cuted not very long ago upon a charge in all respects
similar. Let us, however, protest against the Examiner's
injustice to an amiable and able man, Mr. Fitzroy
Kelly. Mr. Kelly's speech was a weak speech, be.
cause case would afford no better to an honest
man—though eadishonest advocate might very easily
have made; rt- stronger case, and a more efficient speech.
76,1-e have been. we will not say that there are, men at
tee- bar who could have at least raised a doubt, by sug-
gesting hypotheses, which, however, one instructed
in the case must know to be false. It is, however,
strange, as it may seem not improbable, that Mr.
Kelly believed his client possibly innocent. The
most acute minds are often the most apt to mislead
themselves, and in the belief that his client might he
innocent he would not resort to a line of defence
suited only to a desperate case—if indeed such a man
as Mr. Kelly could bring himself to the attempt to
shield a criminal in a clear case of guilt. An
honest lawyer wid avail himself of every point
of law in favour even of the worst offender ;
he will put forward even, in the case of such an offender,
all the truth that can seem to bear favourably on his
case ; but he will not pervert the truth, or suggest what
he knows to be false, even in the case of a men whom he
believes to be innocent. An honest lawyer was, how-
ever, the advocate for Tawell, and, therefore, Mr.
Kelly's was a weak speech.

THE TRADES' DELEGATES
CONFERENCE.

The labours of this Conference of Delegates from the
working classes, held at the Parthenium Club-rooms,
St. Martin' —lane, closed on Saturday evening, and the
following- outline is the result of its deliberations
Ist. The formation of a society, to be-called " The
Association of United Trades for the Protection of In-
dustry," the leading objects of which are to be—first ex-
ternal, having reference to the influence of the Legisla-
ture on the condition of the working classes; and second,
internal, or the efforts made by the trades to improve
their own condition.

' 2d. The establishment of a central committee, to
carry out the object of the Association, and the forma-
tion of a fund to defray the necessary expenses.
3 d. The collection and diffusion of information as
to the means by which the capital, skill, and labours of
the trades can be applied to their own benefit, and espe-
cially to the profitable employment of redundant hands
in the labour market, so as to keep down competition
for employment, and the consequent reduction of wages.
4th. The establishment of trades, manufactories, and
stores.
sth. The holding of an annual moveable Conference.
These general principles being agreed to, a Provisional
Committee was appointed from among the delegates, of
which Mr. Duncombe is constituted president, to draw
up a detailed plan of organisation founded thereon, to be
submitted to an adjourned meeting of the Conference
which is to take plice in the last week of July.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
ROME CI RCUlT.—Kingston, March 31.
(Before the LORD fIITIEF JUSTICE. and a Special Jury.)
DOBS"N V. RIACE.MORE.
This action was heeight to recover compeni.ation from
the defendant, for having, as was alleged, caused an ob-
struction in the water way to certain premises helong-
ing to the plaintiff, and which abut upon the river at
Greenwich ; bet the real ques'ion at issue was the
legality of the Waterman's floating pier, erected at
that, place.
There were a number of counts in the declaration,
some of them charging the defendant with obstructing
the progress to premises in the actual occupation of
the plaintiff, and others with the same act towards pre-
mises in which they had a reversionary interest; and
by the pleas put upon the record by the defendant, the
whole qiiestiiin was put in issue.
Mr. Sergeant Channel', Mr. Sergeant Jones, Mr.
Bodkin, and Mr. Badileley, were for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Sergeant Shoe, Mr. Montagu Chambers, and Mr.
Pi aeock for the defendant.
jMr. Sergeant CIIANNELT„ in stating the case to the
ury, said that the plaintiffs in the present action were
Sir Richard Dobson. the Deputy Inspector of Hospitals,
who previously held an office in the Royal Hospital at
Greenwich, and a gentleman named Sutton. Those
gentlemen were directors of a pier at Greenwich, and as
this would no doubt be alluded to in the course of the
trial, he thought it as well to mention the fact, although
it should be stated that the present action was not
brought by them in their capacity of directors of this
pier, hut as the owners of property adjoining it, which
had sustained material damage through the proceedings
of the defendant, who acted as pier-master, or who was
at all events connected with some persons who had es-
tablished what they called a Waterman's Steam-packet
Company, and who, in erecting a pier for their accom-
modation, had occasioned the damage of which the plain-
tiffs complained. The Learned Counsel then proceeded
to state that the plaintiffs had purchased seven houses,
some of which abutted upen the river and others
were close to it, and t ) the whole of which there
had always been free access from the water, until
the persons with whom the defendant was con-
nected thought proper to build this pier, the effect
of which was to prevent all access, and no boats or
barges could get to them. The proceeding upon which
the present action was founded took place in 1842, at
which period the plaintiffs were desirous of repairing
some of the houses which they had just purchased, and
barges containing the necessary materials were sent
for that purpose. The watermen, however, refused to
_let them come in, and the result was that one of the
barges was swamped and sunk ; and the other was com-
pelled to go a considerable distance up the river to un-
!oad, thus entailing a good deal cf additional expense
lh Performing the repairs. If the defendant, or those
with whom he was concerned, had merely carried out a
jetty
i for the purpose of enabling passengers to embark
made Or dsembark, no complaint would probably have been
; but as it was, the houses belonging to the plain-
tiffs were completely Welted up from all access by
means of the river, and, therefore, the present proceed-
-1.11, g was adopted in order to do away with the obstruc-
llont the object bein not to obtain damages, but merely
to assert a legalri ht
ziedgeende eoi
number g.".
obstruction
o witnesses were then examined, whose
swtriulletnot be necessary to give in detail. The
monday,
1842
`5 ho
it appeared, took place on Whit
, of course, the watermen weref. very
buY, from the people flocking to the air, and
re therefore
not very willing to have their temporary
Pier disturbed, It was very evident from some of the
theti,ll,:nOirren. that there was eireat jealousy between
the preSt:R't the tNo piers, and that the real object of
toor, inn wai. to do away with the et/: leer.
sZaelt;,aut Suee, at the close of the plaintiff's case,
ehnical objections to the form of the action,
whieh wzenrgued atcongiderablelength, and eventually
Ir‘eirriztttat
sen declined to st:)p the case upon them.
L'arned lee then iaddee3sed the jury, and said that
hair 0. nd, in hie address to them on the be-
ject pl eintiff, ha 1 leftout, by accident, the real ob-
. deal.
ablolaPtrescat action. They hail heard a groat
• taehrne,dtet,ttte:Ticihld:iaplos. y and reversionary rights,
-tessoe
of le,ga" arguenent ; hut the fact was,
decide a dispute between a stone pier
the of Parlianaent, and which belonged to
oby a body
erected and a small floating pier, which had been
he f obtaininielivelihood' •
Whfinding their former
entirely taken away
'rAla them by the 1130 of eteam, 1141- been compelled, in