THE POPE'S SUCCESSOR.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1928, 9 March 1875, Page 2

THE POPE'S SUCCESSOR.

The Opinione is quite startled to find the Catholic press in Ireland better informed with respect to the successor of Pius IX. in the Itoman Pontificate than people in clerical circles in Home itself. The Freeman's Journal informs the world,, and the Neve Freie Presse repeats the unexpected intelligence, that the Archbishop of Westminister will return to England invested/with the Cardinalitian purple, and that, moreover during his visit to the Vatican he was formally recognised as the successors of Pius IX. It is presumed it will not be necessary to warn cur readers against a too easy belief in this improbable piece of information, but at Rome the canard is evidently looked at in a serious light, for the Opinione concludes with the following _ paragraph :—" So important an announcement, proceeding from a clerical journal, whose sources of information ire well known, ought not to pass unobserved. To us, nevertheless, it appears unlikely, but we wait uritilother clerical journals* especially those of Borne, shall formally confirm or deny it.", In spite of his present ineligibility—hot being a Cardinal —and notwithstanding the uncertain results of conclave "elections, the writer who made such an announcement must have been very little versed in the mysteries which accompany the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the favoured member of the Sacred College selected for the Supreme "Pohtificate.rEschange. :' -r "••■••' '•

A curious revelation lias been made or ilie interior of the city department of The Times, by the evidence which has been, given in the case of Rubery v. Grant and fc'arapson. Itubery is an enterprising gentleman who was associated in some mysterious way in a great discovery of diamonds and emeralds, some three or four years agOj in a valley of Arizona. They were laying in heaps —that is, the diamonds and emeralds — about the ground, as in the valley where Sinbad found the Boc. They were kicked out of ant-hills. They were seen by a party, who knew another party, who knew Mr IRubery, and Mr Rubery himself—a came naturally ruggestive of rubies —went to see, coming back with the most dazzling reports. Naturally the discoverers came to London, there being an insufficient demand for diamond mines in America, and as naturally they went to Mr Albert Grant to help them to achieve their work and to flood the world with diamonds and emeralds. Mr Albert Grant had had previous transactions, wi'.h Mr Rubery, and some difficulties had arisen between them. Mr liubery not being found amenable to reason, that is to say, to the terms of Mr Albert Grant, there were threats uttered by the latter that he would use his influence over Mr Sampson, the city editor of The Times, to crush Mr Ifuberf and all his works. Certain it is that nrticles appeared in The Times ridiculing the great discovery of precious stones in Arizona, and speaking of the prospectors as no better than swindlers. Upon- this Mr Rubery brings his action against Mr Grant and Sampson, conjointly, as to which action, being still undecided, I shall give no opinion. In cross-examination, however,, Mr Albert Grant gave certain evidence extremely damaging to the character of The Times in the city department. Ho admitted that various large sums of money, in on? year amounting to £5,000, had passed between him and Mr Sampson, for which he could not say that he had received any tangible consideration. He had also allotted shares to Mr Sampson, nbo was an intimaie,friend of his, and a Tery useful man to the commercial comMunity. He defended this, not only, a? a " usual custom," but as a very good and "laudable" custom. Mr Sampson had *aken a great deal of trouble to obtain information for the bankers, and it was only right that his labours should be recognised and rewarded. On behalf of the defendant Sampson said not a single word of excuse or denial was uttered by the counsel ostensibly representing his case. Indeed, Mr Ginard avowed that he was only in court to represent The Times newspaper, which is apparently contented to defend its own character, and to prove that it did its duty to the public in expesing the Arizona swindle.' Such a course it is clear leaves Mr Sampson, the late city editor of The Times, out in the cold.