The Sun. — London, England, 1868-03-04 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF TEE PUBLIC JOURNALS, What can be done for Ireland? This is the question asked by the Times. If anybody is so weak as to envy the success of a political career, he may be consoled with the reflection that he has not this enigma to solve. All sentiment, all preference—nay, reason itself—must now be regarded in its simplest political bearings, and for its simplest political issues. The government of this country raust be carried on as advantageously for all parties, and as honourably for the whole, as is possible under the cir cumstances. A section of the people, strong in its case, stronger still in fact, and as able as it is ready to impede legislation and to meet with actual mischief an alleged wrong, must be brought into a closer union. It is not necessary that this should be done in the very way urged by the complainants themselves ; for, in truth, they are by no means clear and definite, and hardly reasonable or even serious, in the very matters of their grivanee. It is even open to a suspicion that the Irish Catholic clergy would rather matters remained as they now are, on the calculation that the existing grievances au.,wer their purpose better than any possible remedy. But the statesman, though he has to put a good many other wishes and opinions out of court, may easily find that the people themselves who are the subjects of the experiment render him no assistance. Unless by a trpassing feat of ingenuity some other course should be invented, three ehoic.!s occupy the political field— a new redistribution of the existing endowment between the three religious communities, as proposed by Lord Russell ; an endowment of the Irish Catholic clergy from the Consolidated Fund, as almost every statesman has hoped to find possible ever since the Union ; and, thirdly, the transfer of the Church revenues to some useful purpose or other, over and above the present large expenditure in Ireland out of the common taxes. Our new Premier must know better than we do the extent of his commission and the length of his tether ; and he will therefore know bet ter than we do whether he .will strengthen his Government and the Legislature by redistributing the Church revenues on the principles of abstract justice. The second plan might not alienate many Conservative friends, for that side has ever been prepared to deal freely with the Consolidated Fund ; but there arc at least as many Dissenters in this island as there are Roman Catholics in Ireland, and they have already announced in strong language the reception they mean to give to such a project. They ask for nothing themselves, but only insist that they are never to he called upon to pay • a sixpence more to the maintenance of doctrines they believe to be false and mischievous. "Why," they ask, " arc we to pay two Churches, over our own heads, one more superstitious than the other, when we have our own ministry and worship to support ?" Ac for the third course, there is the difficulty of dealing with the money in a way that shall not seem robbery and sacri lege. Everything is already done for Ireland that can be done with decency for it, and nothing is left for the Church nvenues to do, supposing them released for the purpose. Tlere, then, are three courses, but not one which does not threaten political inconveniences as serious, perhaps, as those which are to be remedied. It is not unlikely the Opposition may attempt to decide the question by propos ing some course of their own. By so doing they may pos sibly displace the present Government ; but it is also pos si7 le they may strengthen it. ' c Post favours its readers with a description of tn, , of Magdala, as that is the place our army will probably have to take. Magdala, situated in a rough, rugged part of the country, near the foot of the great mountainous ranges of the provinces of Lasta and Wad dela, where the features of the ground seem tossed about in a wild chaos of chasm and precipice, and lying in an unfr, Dented route, has not been much visited by Euro pean travellers, but we have a description of it given bS Steudner, who visited it in 1862. We learn from this gen tleman's account that Magdala is a " fortress by nature," having very few artificial walls for defence, which indeed are not required, and are only placed at the rare points where the very high and almost " pependicular" sides of the plateaux upon which it is situated are at all acces sible. It would appear that the fortress consists of two fortified plateaux, connected together by a "narrow rackety ridge." Approaching the fortress from the north by the Debra Tabor road, the traveller first reaches what he terms the " advanced fortress," situated with the " citadel " on a plateau which " rises on most points per pendicularly from the valley to a height of six or eight hundred feet." The citadel, although on the same general plateau as the " advanced fortress," is several hundred feet higher than, and commands it. The main road passes through the citadel along the narrow ridge before men tioned, on to the plateau of Tanta, which forms the third member of this triple fortress ; this fortified plateau is in its turn several hundred feet higher than, and commands the so-called "citadel "—rather a misnomer, as Theodore will probably experience practically if we take Tanta first. The Daily _Yews answers an inquiry put by a correspon dent why Russian shares are not quoted at their apparent value. In reply, our contemporary goes back to the time of the Emperor Nicholas, and spews that during his life it was extremely difficult for anyone to leave the kingdom, commerce was despised, and everything was at a standstill. Oa his death, however, a new regime was inaugurated. Every Thrsian, who could, emigrated, and .le went back again, having learnt how to speculate. After that there was a fever of speculation. Its subsidence was followed by another excitement directed towards railway schemes. All schemes were supported by the Government, which granted all demands. In some cases it was prepared to give a guaranteed interest of G per cent, on five-and-twenty thousand pounds a mile, through a flat country with no engineering difficulties, with right of free way through all crown lands, and a fixed price of two shillings and sixpence an acre for others. If these terms had been frankly offered in the London market, they would have been no doubt eagerly accepted by men of substance and honour. Ent they were invariably jobbed, and clumsily jobbed. A French company first rose at the golden bait, but could make nothing of it ; and then Russian railway schemes were hawked about to every banker in Europe. Many tried to deal with them ; but what could be done with a grasping fraternity, who often wanted as much as a hundred thousand pounds premium for their good word, which was the first and essential point in the whole business ? Very slowly, however, several railways began to be made in spite of every difficulty ; and doubtless these lines are now paying apparently fair dividends. How long they may continue to do so is quite a different question. Russia is on the eve of a financial crisis. She is also on the eve of great reforms. The old system of whole sale bribes and public robbery is rapidly passing away, and it is not improbable that a very few years will witness representative government and a free constitution at St. Petersburg. Whenever this takes place all public grants and concessions made by the de funct despotism will be revised, and wherever there is any thing proveably wrong about them they will be annulled. It is the perfect knowledge of this fact among experienced men which renders Russian railway shares in their eyes a doubtful security. It is true that they may seem to be paying a fair dividend, but it is by no means clear how long that dividend will continue to be paid, or whether the shareholders will be able to maintain their rights should they ever be disputed by a Government disposed to repudiate the obligations incurred by the party now in power. It is an easy thing, the Herald remarks, to magnify a truth till it assumes the proportions of a falsehood. To some such process we owe the marvellous statement which, in the dearth of other news of general interest, has been ventilated by certain organs of the independent press in Paris, and echoed with great glee by some of our con. temporaries in this country. We are gravely informed that an alliance, offensive and defensive, has been con• eluded by England, France, and Austria ; that it is do signed to meet certain possible eventualities in the East. and intended to counteract another alliance betweer the Governments of Russia, I'russia, and the United States. The meaning of those who circulate this report is obviously that a general war is imminent ; one which having the Eastern question for its starting point or ex. ruse, will involve no t E urope on l y, b ut t h e w h o l e wor k in arms, arranging in hostile camps, delicately and almost mathematically balanced, the armies and navies of the six great Powers. A statement more absurdly and more grotesquely false it would be scarcely possible to conceive, and it is scarcely credible that a Liberal contemporary should have based upon it an act of accusation against the Government of England, and endorsed it with a passionate appeal to hurl the Tories from office. This tale of ar alliance is simply false, but it is not difficult to discover the origin of the 'canard—the small beginnings out oi which this enormous bubble was blown. The Provost and Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, have conferred the degree of Doctor of Divinity upon the Very Rev. Archibald Boyd, who has recently been nominated by the Crown to the deanery of Exeter. MR. MURPHY IN THE COUNTY COURT. —At the mrn County Court, Mr. Murphy, the lecturer, we, v a, person named Shand, for £3l 7s. C 1.,, alleged te t ic due fur services rendered. It appealed that whilst Blackt Murphy was in Blackburn the plaint:if was engaged b 3 him to travel the country to hire halls suitable for lectures He was engaged seventeen weeks, and hired fourteer halls ; but he admitted that there had never been an) definite arrangement as to payment for his services. Foi Mr. Murphy it was contended that the services of the plaintiff were of a purely voluntary character ; that he (plaintiff) was so hearty in the cause that he volunteerec to do the work if the defendant would pay him his tra veiling expenses. The judge gave a verdict for R 7 10s., avitturphy very excitedly told his Honour that he woule 10 44:c.69_4_C1P4k49;9 he PIN Pay the money, MUCKING' M URDLIC. One of the most bloody and atrocious murders that has been heard of in this country since that committed by Rush, perhaps, was committed on Monday night at Todmorden by a weaver of checks named Miles Wetherall. It seems t sat for some time past Wetherall had been paying his addresses to a servant-maid living at the par sonage (the Rev. Mr. Plows's), and in consequence of his visits the girl had been discharged, and went back to York, where her parents lived. On Saturday and Sun day Wetherall went to York, on a visit to her. On re turning he appears to have resolved on taking fearful vengeance upoti her late master and mistress, and upon the housemaid, who was supposed to have told of his visits to her fellow-servant. About half-past ten o'clock on Monday night Mr. Plows, who was preparing to retire to his bed room, heard a noise at the back door. Ire went out by the hall door and proceeded to the hack of the house, where he saw Wetherall with a hatchet in his hand, and who iminediately snapped a pistol at him, lint it missed fire. Wethcrall next attacked Mr. Plows with the hatchet. but Mr. Plows closing with him, they went backwards struggling into the lobby of the house, through the backdoor. The noise alarmed the servants, and the housemaid, cook, and nurse came to see what was the matter. Some of these seized Wetherall by the hair and clothes to hold him back. The result was, that Mr. Plows escaped by the front hall door, but not until he had received two long scalp wounds at the back of the head and another at the top of the head, several vertical cuts on the forehead, one ear torn from top to bottom, and other wounds. The women also got out of his way for the time, but having locked the front and back doors, the housemaid sought shelter in the dining-room, and for a time kept him at bay by placing her back against the door. Wetherall,however, managed to get his right arm through the door, and dis charged a pistol at her, shooting her dead. He next went into the kitchen and armed himself with a poker, and pro ceeded upstairs to a bedroom in which Mrs. Plows was lying, and where she had recently given birth to a child. The nurse told him he could not go there, but he told her not to mind, as he had finished those below, and forced his way past her. Stripping down the bed-clothes he fired at Mrs. Plows, but the ball did not take effect. He next attacked her savagely with the poker, inflicting some severe scalp wounds, breaking her nose and otherwise injuring her. Whilst in the act of striking another blow at her his arm was arrested by a man named Stansfield, the church organist, who had seen Mr. Plows, and who was accom panied by two other men. By these men he was re moved, and given over to the police. It appears that he was armed with three pistols and a hatchet when he went to the house. He behaved with remarkable coolness when in custody, remarking, " I have done it—l meant to do it, and am only sorry the pistol (that aimed at Mr. Plows) did not go off better." The lobby of the house was marked with blood like a slaughter-house. The housemaid was found dead behind the dining-room door. Mr. and Mrs. Plows are lying in a precarious state. LAW AND POLICE. THE INCONVENIENCE OF SIMILAR N AMES.—A singular case of some importance has occupied the Master of the Rolls lately. It was a suit instituted by the well-known firm of Messrs. Day, Son, and Hewitt, of London, cattle medicine manufacturers and sellers, against the defendant, John Henry Day, who also carries on the same business with equal reputation at Stafford, to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant from selling medicines under the designation of "J. H. Day and Sons," or "Day and Sons," or with any representation that the medicines sold by the defendant are made by the plaintiffs or are identical therewith. The dispute which resulted in this suit is, in fact, between rival manufacturers of similar articles, and the contest has been none the less bitter because the plaintiff, Thomas Day, and the defendant are brothers. So long ago as 1834 the plaintiff com menced and carried on his business, and the defendant was with him for a few years, but not as a partner. The defendant, however, left the plaintiff's employ, and, about 1845, began a similar business on his own account. It was established by evidence that he en gaged discharged agents or travellers of his brother, and sold his medicines in the districts and to the customers amongst which the plaintiff's trade lay. Thence arose complaints, recriminations, angry handbills, and mutual misrepresentations and misstatements. Each asserted that the other stole his customers, and that his own was the original business and firm, which the other imita'el. Lord Romilly said that if he granted an injunction on one side, he would have to do the same on the other. Mistakes would have arisen under any circumstances. The bill ought never to have been filed, and he should dismiss it. As, however, some of the defendant's statements had been unwarrantable, he should make no order as to costs. THE ORIENTAL COMMERCIAL BANK.—In the matter of this bank, which is now in liquidation, the question has come before Vice-Chancellor 'Wood, whether an advance of £4OO made by a shareholder to the bank at a time when it was in difficulties could be credited to him as so much mo ley paid on account of the amount remain ing unpaid upon his shares, for which a call has since been made ; in other words, whether this payment could be taken as made in anticipatio:i of calls not at the time made, or was a simple loan to the company, entitling the person making it to rank as a creditor, but not to a deduction pro Lento from the amount due upon his shares. The bank being in difficulties a meeting was called, at which it was agreed that each shareholder should pay £3 Per share, to be returned if the bank weathered the finan cial crisis. Mr. Barge, a holder of 200 shares, paid at the rate of £2 per share, with a large number of others. The bank, however, collapsed, and Mr. Barge now wished to be declared a creditor. On it appearing that Mr. Barge had paid the money while yet there was a petition before the court for winding up the bank, his Honour dismissed Mr. Barge's petition. THE MURDER BY BURGLARS AT BIRMINGHAM. - At Warwick Assizes on Tuesday three men, named Thomas Marlow, hawker ; William Beesley, general dealer ; and Louis Bee, alias Grayson, were in dicted for the wilful murder of Mary Milbourne, at Bir mingham, on the 21st January last. Miss Milbourne, it seems, was an elderly single lady, and lived in one of her own houses, in Heneage-street, Birmingham. She was understood to be possessed of money, and to keep a considerable sum in the house. Th - 3 prisoners entered into an arrangement with a man not in custody to rob the deceased. As a preli minary step Tee's wife went to Miss Milbourne, pro fessedly to take one of her houses, and ascertained that she did not keep any servant. About four o'clock on the 21st January, the prisoners, the man not in custody, and the approver John Mack, proceeded to the house of Miss Milbourne, who was from home at the time. Mack kept watch in the street whilst the three men were engaged ransacking the house. When the deceased returned the man not in custody seized her by the throat, on the top of the cellar head, and strangled her. They made their escape, meeting the same night at a house in Lawley-street. There they shared the money, which only amounted to £B. Subsequently the prisoners were apprehended, on information given to the police by Mack. The prisoners were shewn by independent evidence to have been in Heneage-street at the time the murder was committed ; and a Mrs. Crutchley deposed to Bee's wife having made inquiries of her respecting Miss Milbourne a short time before the murder; whilst on the afternoon it was perpe trated a woman came and engaged her in conversation at the street door. The jury, after twenty minutes' con sultatioh, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. THE LEICESTER ELECTION.-At the Leicester Assizes, oefore Mr. Baron Bramwell, the case of Freeman v. Taylor has been tried. It was an action for assault arising out of a quarrel that took place between the plaintiff and de fendant just prior to the recent election for South Leicester shire. The plaintiff's story was, that they were both of them supporters of Mr. Paget, and were going home from a public-house in Leicester about half-past one in the morn ing just before the election. While talking about the approaching struggle, the defendant said that Paget would win by a majority of 200 votes. The plaintiff replied, "You talk like a fool and an idiot. Upon that the defendant struck him with a stick, the plaintiff re taliated with his fist, and then the defendant used his stick again with so much violence as to cause severe injury to the plaintiff, for which he now brought his action. The defence was, that the first blow was struck by the plaintiff. The jury, after a short absence, found a verdict for the plaintiff ; damages, £lO. His lordship refused to certify for costs. GREAT WATCH ROBBERIES. —The four men so cleverly captured by the police just at the moment they had re ceived a consignment of stolen watches from Liverpool, were tried on Tuesday, at the Central Criminal Court, on an indictment relating to the robbery of nineteen watches, &c., and there were four other indict ments of a similar nature. All this plunder was the result of robberies from the person, and not, as might have been supposed, the produce of a wholesale operation at some watchmaker's establishment. It was clearly proved that one of the prisoners, namcd Rogers, sent off the box of watches from Liverpool, and the others, Byatt, Irvine, and Johnson received them in London. Rogers was sent ence d to fi ve and Byatt to ten years' penal servitude, and the others to two years' hard labour each. HUGHENDEN. —The generally quiet village of Hughenden was all alive on Saturday last, the bells of Hughenden Church ringing a merry peal by direction of Messrs. Coates and Hussey, the churchwardens, to cele brate the kissing of hands of their respected squire, the Right Her. B. I is tieli, on his appoi tment as Premier of Fa=land. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EV. ENING, MARCH 4, 1868. CONGRESS. SENATE. Feb. 13.—The Chair presented a petition of citizens asking that the Constitution of the United States should be so changed as to recognize the existence of God and the obligations of religion. —Referred to Judiciary Committee. The resolu tion providing for the admission of the Hon. P. F. Thomas, Senator elect for Maryland, was taken up, and Mr. Sumner submitted a substitute, setting forth facts which showed he was guilty of misprison of treason as defined by existing laws, and cannot be permitted to take the oaths of office. Mr. Sumner supported his resolution by a speech, wherein he asserted that the question of how to secure loyalty in the Southern States had been substituted with the question of how to secure loyalty in the Senate. The action of the Senate would affect the validity of the Constitutional amendment excluding rebels. Both by the spirit and letter of the Con stitution that amendment was a part of it. It had neon favourably reported upon by three-fourths of the State Legislatures, and, above all, there was nothing in the Constitution to prevent the Senate from prescribing loyalty as a qualification. A dis loyal Senator in the Chamber is perilous to the Re public ; failing in loyalty, he cannot be allowed to go to that desk. If the Senate knowingly permits him to take a false oath it becomes a partner in his crime. The country had a right to expect loyalty above suspicion in all who entered that Chamber, and none who had given aid or countenance to another engaged in the rebellion can be permitted to take the oath. Mr. Trumbull followed. He agreed with all Mr. Sumner had said, but argued in favour of admitting Mr. Thomas, while Mr. Sher wan thought it his duty to vote against the ad mission of Mr. Thomas, but not for the reasons stated by Mr. Sumner.—The discussion continued till the Senate adjourned. of naturalization, under conditions imposed by law, ; are declared to he and to have been a part of the public law of the United States, and tho Executive shall insist upon die observance of these rights by foreign nations. if th' see rights shall be contravened it is made the duty of the Pre sident to so inform Congress without delay, so that that body may take immediate means for the protection of its citizens. Any citizen may lose his national character ; Ist, by becoming naturalized in any foreign country ; 2d, by undertaking without the permission of this Govern meat the performance of public duties under a foreign Go vernment ; 3d, by making his domicile in a foreign. Govern meat without intent to return. Citizens of theb finited States in every part of the world, while engaged in lawful business, shall be entitled to the protection of the G overn ment ; but protection shall not be accorded to the fol lowing classes of persons : —lst. Those who have renounce I their citizenship by either of the three modes prescribed above. 2. Those who may bo guilty of a crime against a. _foreign country, committed within its jurisdiction. 3d. T hose who by treason or other crime against the United States ,hall have forfeited their rights of citizens. 4th. Those who shall have been absent from the United States for in ore than five years continuously, and who shall have failed to make return of their income and property for taxat ion, and shall have paid no taxes, &c. oth. Those who shalt engage in the service of any foreign belligerent contrar7 to the provisions of the neutrality laws of the United St. des. 6th. Those who may connect themselves with any a.;sociation in any foreign country whose organization reptims citi zenship of such country as a qualification for mom bership thereof. 7th. Those naturalized citizens who Audi return to the country of their birth with intent to resume a domi cile therein, which intent shall bo presumed from five years' continuous residence in the native country of any such naturalized citizen, or from the establishment of any business therein which requires his personal attention, and which denotes an intention of remaining a permanent re sident. Bth. Those persons who have procured the evi dence of naturalization by misrepresentation or fraud in regard to residence or otherwise. 9th. Those who have deserted from actual service in the army or navy of any foreign State, or who, owing military service to their native country, have left it to avoid a conscription ac tually ordered. Tho hill then enacts that any one who has lost his citizenship by any of the above modus, may again become a citizen by declaring his intention, .&c.] The following is the text of the bill introduced to the House to-day by Mr. Wilson, of lowa, for the surrender of persons convicted of certain crimes. It enacts that no person who has been duly convicted in a foreign country, and adjudged guilty of mur der, piracy, assassination, arson, robbery, or for gery, and whose conviction has not been reversed, shall be allowed to enter or remain in the United States; and it authorizes the President, upon the production of satisfactory proof that a person so convicted of either of the said crimes has entered, or is about to enter, the United States, to cause him to be sent back to the country from which he came or in which he may have been so convicted. Feb. 13.—The Rights of American Citizens abroad were discussed ; Mr. Jenckes, of Rhode Island, on the floor. The Speaker said the bill would occupy every morning hour next week, to the exclusion of business and reports from other committees. After Mr. Jenckes' remarks, Mr. Wilson, of lowa, moved to refer the subject to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Banks, of Massa chusetts, moved to amend by recommitting the bill and pending amendments to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which was agreed to. The House resumed the consideration of the contested election, Smith versus Brown from sth District Kentucky, and Mr. John Young Brown addressed the House in support of his right. He explained at length the position he occupied in 1861, and repelled the charges that he was disloyal to the Government, and he showed that he occupied the same position that was then occupied by such men as Crittenden, Guthrie, Speed, and others. After Mr. Brown bad spoken one hour his time was extended to en able him to conclude his speech. Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, chairman of the Committee on Elec tions, rose to close debate upon the pending reso lution, and first denied that the report of the com mittee was in any respect partisan in its character. Referring to some remarks heretotore made by Mr. Kerr, of Indiana, upon the case, in which the latter accused him of misrepresenting the facts in the case, the charge was repelled ; and Mr. Dawes said he resorted to no misrepresentation, nor did he deem it necessary to resort to special pleading in the case. He then reviewed at length the record of Mr. Brown, and then argued that it all s h owe d di s l oyalty. On the question being put, declaring Mr. Brown entitled to his seat, there were 43 yeas to 108 nays. The vote was a strictly party one, with the excep tion of Messrs Jenckes of Rhode Island, Poland of Vermont, and Mallory of Oregon, who voted in the affirmative. The resolution declaring Mr. Brown not entitled to a seat was then adopted. THE GREAT STANTON CASE. THE GRANT AND JOHNSON CORRESPONDENCE. (From the Anglo-American Times.) As the great Stanton case appears to be the match destined to ignite the c om b us tibl es ga th er ed at Washington, we give the details almost in full. On the 3d February a resolution was agreed to iu the House calling for the correspondence between the President and General Grant relative to the surrender of the War Office to Secretary Stanton on his re-instatement by the Senate. Next day the Secretary of War forwarded to the Speaker copies furnished him by General Grant purporting to be all the correspondence the General had ou the subject. Mr. Stanton, in his forwarding letter, states that he had no communication with the President since last August. In obedience to the Act of Congress, he had resumed the duties of his office, and no order had been issued from the Department in the name of the President, that he had received no orders from him, nor written, nor had personal commu nication with him. General Grant's first letter is dated January 25, 1868. It will be observed that this was Saturday, and he commences by alluding to a request he had made on Friday to substitute written for the verbal instructions Mr. Johnson he had previously given not to obey any order from Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, unless he knew it can from the President. His message in reply left doubt in Grant's mind, and, to prevent the chance of misun derstanding, he renewed the application for writ ten instructions. He is compelled to ask for this in consequence of the gross misrepresentations affect ing his personal honour circulated in the press, and purporting to come from the President, of either private conversations with the President, or in Cabinet meetings. 4 ‘ What is written," the General says, " admits of no misunder standing, and in view of the misrepresentations sent forward, it will be well to state the facts of the case." General Grant has learnt the bitter les son that he cannot serve two masters ; and he has yet to learn that what is written can admit of mis understanding. The following is the General's ver sion of the circumstances :--" Some time after I assumed the duties of Secretary of War, ad interim, the President asked my views as to the course Mr. Stanton would have to pursue, in case the Senate should not concur in his suspension, to obtain pos session of his office. My reply was, in substance, that Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to the courts to reinstate him, illustrating my position by citing the grounds I had taken in the case of the Balti more Police Commissioners. In that case, I did not doubt the technical right of Governor Swann to re move the old commissioners and to appoint their successors, as the old commissioners refused to give up. However, I contended that no resource was left but to appeal t o th e cour t s . Finding that the Pre sident was desirous of keeping Mr. Stanton out of office, whether sustained in the suspension or not, I stated that I had not looked particularly into the Tenure-of-Office Bill, but that what I had stated was a general principle, and if I should change my mind in this particular case, I would inform hint of the fact. Subsequently, on reading the Tenure-of- Office Bill closely, I found that I could not, with out violation of the law, refuse to vacate the office of Secretary of War the moment Mr. Stanton was reinstated by the Senate, even though the President ordered me to remain, which he never did. 'raking this view of the subject, and learning on Saturday, the 11th inst., that the Senate had taken up the subject of Mr. Stanton's suspension, after some conversation with Lieut.-Gen. Sherman and some members of my staff, in which I stated that the law left me no discretion as to my action, should Mr. Stanton be reinstated, and that I intended to inform the President, I went to the President for the sole purpose of making this decision known, and I did N. make it known, In doing this .1 fulfilled the promise made in our ' last preceding conversation on - the subject. The President, however, instead of accepting my view of the requirements of the Tenure-of-Office Bill, contended that he had suspended Mr. Stanton under the authority given by the Constitution, and that the same authority did not preclude him from re porting as an act of courtesy his reasons for the suspension to the Senate; that having been appointed under the authority given by the Constitution, and not under any act of Congress, I could not be governed by the Act. I stated that the law was binding on me, constitutional or not, until set aside by the proper tribunal. An hour or more was con sumed, each reiterating his views on this subject, until, getting late, the President said he would see me again. i did not agree to call again on Monday, nor at any other definite time, nor was I sent for by the President until the following Tuesday. From the 11th to the Cabinet meeting on the 14th, a doubt never entered my mind about the Presi dent's fully understanding my position, namely, that if the State refused to concur in the suspension of Mr. Stanton, my powers as Secretary of War, ad interim, would cease, and Mr. Stanton's right to resume at once the functions of his office would, under the law, be indisputable, and I acted ac cordingly. With Mr. Stanton I had no communi cation, direct or indirect, on the subject of his reinstatement, during his suspension. I knew it had been recommended to the President to send in the name of Governor Cox, of Ohio, for Secretary of War, and thus save all embarrassment, a proposi tion that I sincerely hoped he would entertain favourably, Gen. Sherman seeing the President, at my particular request to urge this, on the 13th inst. On Tuesday, the day Mr. Stanton re-entered the office of the Secretary of War, General Comstock, who had carried my official letter announcing that with Mr. Stanton's reinstatement by the Senate I had ceased to be Secretary of War, ad interim, and who saw the President open and read the commu nication, brought back to me from the President a message that he wanted to see me that day, at the Cabinet meeting, after I had made known the fact that I was no longer Secretary of War, ad interim. At this meeting, after opening it as though I was a member of his Cabinet, when reminded of the noti fication already given him that I was no longer Secretary of War, ad interim, the President gave a version of the conversation alluded to already. In ' this statement it was asserted that in both conversa tions I had agreed to hold on to the office of Secre tary of War until displaced by the courts, or resign, so as to place the PreSident where he would have been had I never occupied the office. After hearing the President through, I stated our conversations, substantially as given in this letter. I will add that my conversation before the Cabinet embraced other matter not pertinent here, and is therefore left out. I in no wise admitted the correctness of the Presi dent's statement of our conversation, though to soften the evident contradiction my statement gave, I said, alluding to our first conversation on the sub ject, the President might have understood me the way he said, namely, that I had promised to resign if I did not resist the reinstatement. I made no such promise." The first paragraph causes some surprise, as the President appears to have consulted the General on a legal point of great diffi culty. It is evident that his object could not have been to get a legal opinion, but to ascertain how far the General would support in resisting the action of the Senate, which he must clearly have anticipated. The noticeable point is that the General when he arrived at his final decision not to support the President in what he considered a breach of the law did not resign the ad interim appointment to the President, his commanding officer, from whom he had received it. It is in this that General Grant erred, for whatever might have been the President's course, the simple, honest, soldier-like expedient was for him to give back the appointment, stating that his own conclusion as to his duty prohibited him from acting as the President desired. Accompany ing this letter was the official application for a written order to disregard instructions from the Secretary of War, which the President endorsed as we stated in our last. To this memorandum Grant replied on the 30th of January, stating that he had not received any instructions impairing his authority to issue orders to the army as had been the custom under the law and practice of the Department. Grant then goes on to state that until such com mand be issued by the President it would be satis factory evidence to him that all orders from the War Department by direction of the President are authorised by the Executive. The next day the president dated his version of the affair :—" General, —I have received your communication of the 28th inst., renewing your request of the 24th, that I should repeat in a written form my verbal instruc tions on the 19th inst, viz.,—' That you obey no order of Edwin M. Stanton as Secretary of War, unless you have information that it was issued by the President's direction.' In submitting this re quest, with which I complied on the 29th inst., you take occasion to allude to the recent publication in reference to the circumstances connected with the vacation by yourself of the Office of Secretary of War, ad interim, and with the view of correcting the state ments which you term gross misrepresentations,' and give at length your recollection of the facts under which, without the sanction of the President, from whom you had received and accepted the appoint ment, you yielded the Department of War to the present incumbent, as stated in your communication. Some time after you had assumed the duties of Secretary of War, ad interim, we interchanged views respecting the course that should be pursued in the event of the non-concurrence by the Senate in the suspension of Mr. Stanton. I sought that inter view, calling myself at the War Department. My sole object in then bringing the subject to your at tention was to ascertain definitely what would be your own action, should such an attempt be made for his restoration to the War Department. That object was accomplished, for the interview termi nated with the distinct understanding that if, upon reflection, you should prefer not to become a party to the controversy, or should conclude that it would be your duty to surrender the department to Mr. Stanton upon action in his favour by the Senate, you were to return the office to me, prior to a de cision by the Senate, in order that, if I desired to do so, I might designate some one to succeed you. It must have been apparent to you that had not this understanding been reached, it was my purpose to relieve you from the further discharge of your duties as Secretary of War, ad interim, and to ap point some other person in that capacity. Other conversations on the subject ensued, all of them having, on my part, the same object and leading to the same conclusion as the first. It is not neces sary, however, to refer to any of them excepting that of Saturday, the 11th inst., mentioned in your communication, as it was then known that the Senate had proceeded in the case of Mr. Stanton. I was anxious to learn your determination. After a protracted interview, during which the provisions of the Tenure-of-Office Bill were fully discussed, you said, that as it had been agreed upon in our first conference, you would either return the office to my possession in time to enable me to appoint a successor before final action by the Senate upon Mr. Stanton's suspension, or would remain at its head awaiting a decision of the question by judicial proceeding. It was then understood that there would be a further conference on Monday, by which time I supposed you would be prepared to inform me of your final decision. You failed, however, to fulfil the engagement, and on Tuesday notified me in writing the receipt of your of11;ial notification of the action of the Senate in the case of Mr. Stanton, and at the same time informed me that, according to the Act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, your functions as Secretary of War, ad interim, ceased from the moment of the receipt of the notice. You thus, in disregard of the under standing between us, vacated the office without having given me notice of your intention to do so. It is but just, however, to say that in your commu nication you claim that you did inform me of your purpose, and thus fulfilled the promise made in our last preceding conversation on the subject. The fact that such a promise existed is evidence of an arrangement of the kind I have mentioned. You had found in our first conference that the Presi dent was desirous of keeping Ur, Stanton out of office, whether sustained in the suspension or not ; you knew what reasons had induced the President to ask from you a promise ; you also knew that in case your views of duty did not accord with his own convictions, it was his purpose to fill your place by another appointment. Even ignoring the existence of a positive understanding between us, the conclusions were plainly deducible from our various conversations. It is certain, however, that even under those circumstances you did not offer to return the place to my possession, but, according to your own statement, placed yourself in a position where, could I have anticipated your action, I would have been compelled to ask from you, as I was compelled to ask of your predecessor in the War Department, a letter of resignation, or else to resort to the more disagreeable expedient of sus pending you by the appointment of a successor. As stated in your letter, the nomination of Gover nor Cox, of Ohio, for the office of Se3rotary of War was suggested to me. This appointment as Mr. Stanton's successor was urged in your name, and it was said that his selection would save further embarrassment. I did not think that in the selection of a Cabinet officer, I should be trammelled by such considerations. I was prepared to take the re sponsibility of deciding the question in accordance with my ideas of constitutional duty, and having determined upon a course which I deemed right and proper, was anxious to learn the steps you would take, should the possession of the War Department be demanded by Mr. Stanton. Had your action been in conformity with the understanding between us, Ido not believe that the embarrassment would have attained its present proportions, or that the probability of its repetition would have been so great. I know that, with a view to an early ter mination of State affairs so detrimental to the pub lic interests, you voluntarily offered, both on Mon day 15th inst., and on the succeeding Sunday, to call upon Mr. Stanton and urge upon him that the good of the service required his resignation. I confess that I considered your proposal as a sort of reparation for the failure on your part to act in accordance with an understanding, more than once repeated, which I thought had received your full assent, and under which you could have returned to me the office which I had con ferred upon you, thus saving yourself from embar rassment and leaving the responsibility where it properly belonged with the President, who is ac countable for the faithful execution of the law. I have not yet been informed by you whether, as twice proposed by yourself, you had called on Mr. Stanton and made an effort to induce him volun tarily to resign from the War Department. You conclude your communication with a reference to our conversation at the meeting of the Cabinet held on Tuesday, the 14th inst. In your account of what then occurred ybu say After the Presi dent had given his version of our previous conver sations, you stated them substantially as given in your letter, and that you in no wise admitted the correctness of his statement of them. Though to soften the evident contradiction my statement gave, I said, alluding to our first communication on the subject, the President might have understood iu the way he said, namely, that I had promised to resign if I did not resist the reinstatement. I made no such promise.' " My recollection of what then transpired is diametrically the reverse of your nar rative. In the presence of the Cabinet, I asked you first, if in a conversation which took place shortly after your appointment as Secretary of War, ad interim, you did not agree either to remain at the head of the War Department, and abide any judi cial proceedings that might follow the non-concur rence by the Senate in Mr. Stanton's suspension, or, should you wish not to become involved in such a controversy, to put me in the same position with respect to the office, as I occupied previous to your appointment, by returning it to me in time to anti cipate such action by the Senate. This you admitted. Second—l then asked you if at the conference on the preceding Saturday I had not, to avoid mis understanding, requested you to state what you intended to do ; and further, if, in reply to that in quiry, you had not referred to my former conver sations, saying that, from them, I understood your position, and that your action would be consistent with the understanding which had been reached? 'To these questions you also replied in the affirma tive. Third—l next asked if, at the conclusion of our interview on Saturday, it was not understood that we were to have another conference on Monday before final action by the Senate on the case of Mr. Stanton, and you replied that such was the under standing, but that you did not suppose the Senate would act so soon ; that on Monday you had been engaged in a conference with General Sherman, and were occupied with ' many little matters,' and asked if General Sherman had not called on that day. What relevancy General Sherman's visit to me on Monday had with the purpose for which you were to have called, I am at a loss to perceive, as he certainly did not inform me whether you had determined to retain possession of the office, or to afford me an opportunity to appoint a successor in advance. This account of what passed between us at the Cabinet meeting on the 14th inst. widely differs from that contained in your com munication, for it shows that instead of having ' stated our conversations as given in the letter' which has made this reply necessary, you ad mitted that my recital of them was entirely accurate. Sincerely anxious, however, to be cor rect in my statements, I have, to-day, read this narration of what occurred on the 14th inst. to the members of the Cabinet, who were then present. They, without exception, agree to its accuracy. It is only necessary to add that on Wednesday morn ing, the 15th, you called on me in company with Liout. Gen. Sherman, and after some preliminary conversation, you remarked that an article in the National lntelligencer of that date did you much injustice. I replied that I had not read the Intelli geneer of that morning. You first told me that it was your intention to urge Mr. Stanton to resign his office. After you had withdrawn I carefully read the article of which you had spoken, and found that its statement of the misunderstanding between us was substantially correct. On the 17th I caused it to be read to four of the five members of the Ca binet who were present at our conference on the 14th, and they concurred in the general accuracy of its statements respecting our conversation upon that occasion. In reply to your communication I have deemed it proper, in order to prevent further mis understanding, to make the simple recital of facts. —Very respectfully yours, " ANDREW JOHNSON." To this letter the General replied as follows :—" Sir I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 31st ult., in answer to mine of the 28th. After - a careful reading and com parison of it wiih the article in the National In telligencer of the 15th ult., and the article over the initials " J. B. S." in the New York World on the 27th ult., purporting to be based upon your state ment, and that of the members of the Cabinet therein named, I find it only to be a reiteration, only some what more in detail, of the many and gross misre presentations contained in these articles, and which my statement of facts sets forth in my letter of the 28th ult. was intended to correct, and here, I re assert the correctness of my statements in that letter ; anything in your reply to it to the con trary notwithstanding. I confess my surprise that the Cabinet officers referred to should so greatly misapprehend the facts in the matter of admissions, alleged to have been made by me at the Cabinet meeting on the 14th ult., as to suffer their names to be made the basis of the charges in the newspaper ar ticles referred to,or agree to the accuracy, as you affirm they do, of your account of what occurred at that meeting. You know that we parted on Saturday, the 11th ult., without any promise on my part, either expressed or implied, to the effect that I would hold on to the office of Secretary of War, ad interim, against the action of the Senate, or, declining to do so myself, would surrender it to you before such ac tion was had, or that I would see you again at any fixed time on the subject. The performance of the promises alleged to have been made by me would have involved a resistance of the law, and an incon sistency with the whole history of my connection with the suspension of Mr. Stanton. From our conversation and my written protest of August 1, 1867, against the removal of Mr. Stanton, you must have known that my greatest objection to his re moval was the fear that some one would be ap pointed in his stead who would, by opposition to the laws relating to the restoration of the Southern States to their proper relation to the Government, embarrass the army in the performance of the duties especially imposed upon it by the laws, and that it was to prevent such an appointment that I ac cepted the appointment of Secretary of War, ad interim, and not for the purpose of enabling you to get rid of Mr. Stanton, by my withholding it from him, in opposition to the law, or not doing so myself, surrender to one who, as the state ment and assumptions in your communication plainly indicate, was sought. And it was to avoid this danger, as well as to relieve you from the per sonal embarrassment which Mr. Stanton's rein statement would place you, that I urged the ap pointment of Governor Cox, believing that it would be agreeable to you, and also to Mr. Stanton, satis fied as I was that it was the good of the country, and not the otilee, which the latter desired. Oa the 13th ult., in the presence 'of General Sherman, I stated to you that I thought Mr. Stanton would resign, but did not say I would advise him to do so. On the 18th I did agree,- with General Sher man, to go and advise him to that course ; and on the 19th I had an interview alone with Mr. Stanton, which led me to the conclusion that any advice to him of this kind would be useless, and so I informed General Sherman. Before -I consented to advise Mr. Stanton to resign, I understood from him, in a communication on the subject immediately after his reinstatement, that it was his opinion that the Act of Congress entitled au Act to Supply Vacancies in the Executive Department in certain cases ap proved February 20, 1863, was repealed by sub sequent legislation, which materially influenced my action. Previous to this time I had no doubt that the law of 1863 was still in force, and, not withstanding my action, a fuller examination of the law leaves a question in my mind whether it is or is not repealed. This being the case, I could not now advise his resignation, lest the same danger I appre hended from his first removal might follow. The course you would have it understood I agreed to pursue was in violation of law and the orders from you, while the course I did pursue, and which I never doubted you fully understood, was in accord ance with law, and not in disobedience to any orders of my superior. And now, Mr. President, when my honour as a soldier and integrity as a man have been so violently assailed, pardon me for saying that 1 can but regard this whole matter from begin ning to end as an attempt to involve me in the re sistance of law, for which you hesitated to assume the responsibility, in order thus to destroy my cha racter before the country, lamin a measure con firmed in this conclusion by your recent orders directing me to disobey the orders from the Secre tary of War, my superior and your subordinate, without having countermanded his authority whom lam to disobey. With the assurance, Mr. Presi dent, that nothing less than a vindication of my personal honour and character could have induced this correspondence on my part, I have the honour to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, " U. S. GRANT, General." (To be continued.) Foreign Mail Packet List. MAILS DUE. &ustralia and New Zealand, via Southampton March 23. Ditto, via Marseilles .........Marc:i 22. Ditto, via Panama March 3). Brazil, Buenos Ayres, and Monte Video .... March 5. Ditto, by French packet Caps Voids, by Brazil packet March 5. cape of Good Hope. Ascension, and St. Helena March 2 China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton March 5. Ditto, via Marseilles Falkland Islands March 5. Gibraltar, via Southampton India, via Southampton . . ...March 1. Ditto, via MarseiLes March 9. Malta, Egypt, ,to. Ditto, Marseilles.. March 9• Mauritius, Cape of Good Hope, and Natal, via Southampton llaroh Ditt ), Marseilles March 15. Newfoundland ...... ....... l. Portugal Ditto, by privLie ship to (Vont, .. Ditto rltto to Lisbon United States, anada, California, &c., by British packet .3l.trch 9 Ditto, by L. Lited States packet Ditto ditto 'New York) Ditto ditto Niw York) Ditto ditto ( Baltimore) Ditto, by Canadian packet March e. West Coast of Africa, Madeira, and Tenerin West Indies and Pacific (except Mexico and Baha mas) Cubi, and vlexico March O. Bahamas, via New Y liarch 25 Bermuda, via Halifax E. D. Holbrook, the delegate from Idaho, on Wednesday, Feb. 13, as the finishing blow in an argument with Delegate Hooper, of Utah, knocked him down in one of the Senate lobbies. The discussion began on the con firmation of Isaac 0. Gibbs as governor of Idaho, and Mr. Hooper gave Holbrook the lie direct, and was answered with a blow. Last winter Holbrook caned a gentleman at Willard's Hotel. The Hon. James Guthrie, Democratic Senator from Kentucky, has resigned on account of increasing la" firmities. Ho will be succeeded by another Democrat. Charles T. Tuckerman, of New York, has been nominated by tho President, Minister to Greece. This is a new mission, in return for the compliment of the Greek Government in dispatching a Minister to Washington. Charles P. Huntington, long and well known a 5 an able lawyer and an upright judge, died at Boston ou the 6th Feb., about 65 years of age. He was a son of the late Rev. Dan. Huntington, and brother of the Rev. F. D. Huntington ; and had served in the Legis lature with distinction. Ho was a graduate of Harvard College, of the class of 1822, not more than one-third of which aro now living. The town of Huntington, la Hampshire county, was named in his honour. Bernard Marigny died lately. lle wad born ati New Orleans in 1781. Descended from an ancient familYt he inherited a largo fortune, and lived in a sumptuous style' While Louis Philippe resided in the United States ho w 36 th© guest of 31. Marigny. [ADVER.TISEMENT.]— Consumption, and all nervous, bilious , stomach and liver complaints in every stage are only agg ravate" and accelerated by drugs of every description, but perfectly curable by Du Barry's health-restoring Revalenta Arabica Food; as proved by thousands of cases which had :been considere d hopeless; such as indigestion (dyspepsia), cough, asthma, con: sumption, habitual constipation, diarrhoea, all gastric derange meats, hemorrhoids, liver complaints, flatulency, nervousnes s ' biliousness, fevers, sore throats, diphtheria. cataats, colds, in flueuza, noises in the head and ears, rheumatism, gout, WW l ' , rities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness' acidity, palpitation, heartburn, headache, debility, dropsY: cramps, spasms, nausea and sickness, even in pregnancy or a: sea, si.iking tits, bronchitis, scrofula, tightness of the clict ,, pains at the pit of the stomach, and be.ween the shoulders, &t, We quoie a few.—The Pope's health restored by Du Barry Food. Cure No 68,413.—"R0me, July 21, 1866.—The health of the Holy Father is excellent, especially sinco, abandoning a l other remedies, he has confined himself entirely to Du Barry Revalenta, Arabica, Food, of which he consumes a platefu l at every meal. It has pro :bleed a suiprising!y benetle , ? i effect on his health, and his Holiness cannot praise Y 1 . 17 excellent food too highly." From the "Gazette du MIA Jeiy 25. Cure No. 46,270. Mr. James Roberts, timber user' chant, of Frimley, Surrey, of thirty years' diseased lung' , spitting of blood, liver derangement, and partial deafness.; Cure No. 1,771. Lord Stuart de Decies, Lord Lieutenant. 0 ; Waterford, of many years' dyspepsia. No. 49,832. " years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia, nervousnes s ' asthma, cough, constipation, flatulency, s p asms, s i c k nes s an vomiting.—MariaJoly." Important Caution.—Beware of the niaal t unsavoury and more than sloppy imitations to which, withou authority, Baron Liebig's name is most audaciously attached. In tins at Is. 11(1.; 1 lb., 2s 9d.; 2 lbs., 4s. 6d, ; 5 lbs. 11 1"; 121b5., 225.; 21 lbs., 40s.—BARRY Du BARRY and Co., No; Regent-street, London; also Fortnum and Mason, 182, Piccaßib n l 6 ' and at 61, Gracechurch-street; 4, Cheapside; 63, 150, and 27 ' Oxford-street 330 Strand; and all grocers and chemists. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Feb. 6.—The House resumed the consideration of the bill in relation to the rights of American citizens abroad. Mr. Chanler, of New York, ad dressed the House, and argued that this country should demand by treaty that the American law of naturalization and expatriation should berecognized everywhere. He thought the bill did not go far enough, and opposed it. Mr. Boyer, of Penn sylvania, gave notice that at the proper time he would offer a substitute for the bill, in the shape of a joint resolution, providing that all naturalized citizens of the United States shall be entitled to the same protection and privileges as native-born citizens when an attempt is made to deprive them of any one of their rights of person or property ; and the President of the United States shall report to Congress if any citizens of the United States, native or naturalized, are deprived of their liberty in foreign countries in con travention of the rights of American citizens. The Army bill reported to the house to-day appro priates $33,082,091, being $19,490,125, twenty less than the original estimate. It contains a proviso that the expenditure of the money herein appropriated shall be limited and controlled by the following conditions, viz. :—That the military force is reduced to 25 regiments of infantry, seven of cavalry, and five of artillery. No new commission shall be issued in any regiment, except to those who are by law entitled to appointments as second lieutenants by graduation at the United States Military Aca demy, and the Secretary of War is hereby directed to consolidate regiments as rapidly as the require ments of the public service and the reduction in the number of officers will permit until the aforesaid minimum is reached. But this provision shall not be construed to deprive any officer in commission of whatever promotion may be open to him by the oc currence of vacancies among his superiors in rank, such promotion, however, to be always made so as to facilitate, not obstruct, the consolidation of re giments. Feb. 7.—A bill restoring to actual settlement the even-numbered land sections along the line of the Union Pacific Railroad and branches was passed. Mr. Poland, of Vermont, offered, as a privileged question, a resolution to rescind the re solution of March 5, 1867, in relation to drawing of seats, and after debate it was decided by a vote of 86 to 74 to make the drawing on Monday after the drawing hour. The appropriation for compensa tion on mileage for Senators was reduced $320,000. An amendment was agreed to adding an increase of 2t) per cent. to the salaries of the officers and employes of the Senate; $3,590 for packing boxes, and $25,000 for miscellaneous items for the Senate were struck. The pay of officers and employes of the House was also increased 20 per cent. The $50,000 for folding documents, including materials, were reduced to $42,000. Feb. B.—This day was devoted to debate on general topics, the House being resolved into Com mittee of the Whole--Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, in the chair. Mr. Hawking, of Tennessee, Mr. Hunter, of Indiana, and Mr. Stevens, of New Hamp shire, spoke. Feb. 1 0.—After a considerable number of bills acid resolutions had been offered, together with a large number of private bills for claims, pensions, &c., Mr. Pai ne , o f Wi scons i n , b roug ht f orwar d th e following Resolved, That the seat of Govern ment of the United States ought to be removed to the Valley of the Mississippi." It was defeated by a strictly sectional vote—yeas 77, nays 97. The House then proceeded to draw for seats for the Fortieth Congress. When again called to order, the Speaker presented a Message from the President of the United States in re lation to the trial and conviction of American citizens in Great Britain, and transmitting there with a Report of the Secretary of State.—Referred to Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, offered the following resolutions : Resolved. That the evidence taken on impeach ment by the Judiciary Committee be referred to the Committee on Reconstruction, and that the committee have leave to report at any time. Mr. Eldridge would not object if a clause were inserted to print 50,000 extra copies of the testimony on Impeachment for distribution among the people ; nor Mr. Brooks if a resolution was adopted re questing General Grant to transmit to the House President Johnson's last letter on the removal of the Secretary of War. As Mr. Stevens had no objection to either, his resolution was adopted with out opposition. Feb. 11.—The bill on the Rights of American n Citizens ter, o f Indiana, i Foreignn favouring States its p was discussed assago ; Mr. HuMr. Cook, of Illinois, approved the general features ; Mr. Baker, of Illinois, desiring a more distinct ex pression of the doctrine of expatriation, had there fore prepared a substitute ; Mr. Orth, of Indiana, advocated the measure. The Speaker then laid before the House a message from the President, enclosing his last letter in response to General Grant, which was read. Referred to Committee on Reeonstruction, and ordered to be printed, and a resolution adopted to send any further corre spondence on the same subject to the House. Feb. 12. The House resumed the bill in relation to the rights of the American citizens abroad. A number of gentlemen appealed to Mr. Banks, who had the floor, to yield ; but he declined, as h o thought the debate had gone far enough. He wanted the bill passed virtually as reported by the cow mitttee, for he did got wish the door to be thrown open to the amendments that had been offered. He would leave it to the House to say whether they wished this debate to be further continued ; but in justice to the business of the House, he felt im pelled to demand the previous question. Mr. Jenckes asked Mr. Banks if he would not permit a vote upon his amendment. Mr. Banks declined. The proposed substitute was a declaration similar to that contained in the British law, and he was opposed to incorporating such a feature in an American statute. Mr. Butler, Mr. Wilson, of lowa, and others, wanted a clearer recognition of the right of expatriation, and hoped the pre vious question would not be seconded unless a vote was permitted upon the substitutes offered, The House refused to second the demand for the previous question. Mr. Jenckes, of Rhode Island, then offered the bill reported by him a few days ago as a substitute for the report of the committee. [lt provides that the right of expatriation and the right Births. AMBERLEY—On the 2d inst., at 40, Dover:street, the Viscountess Amberley, of twin girls, ono stillborn. EGERTON— On thelstinst., at Devonshire House, Pica' dilly, Lady Louisa Egerton, of a son. KEITH-FALCONER—On the 2d inst., at 21, Cornwall-P r ; dens, Queen's-gate, the lion. Mrs. Keith-Falconer, of daughter. Marriages. M‘DonALL—GoLE—On the 27th ult., at Saint AndreWr, Holborn, W. L. M'Douall, Esq., to Priscilla, the o p., daughter of the late Abraham Gole, Esq., Chelsea. rj.l3 REID BALLINGAL—At Sweet Bank, Markincb, David Reid, Esq., of Shanghae, to Jessie Alston, 00 daughter of William Ballingal, Esq. Deaths. DEACON—On the 2(1 inst., at Finchley, Virginia G l '',l relict of Mr. Samuel Deacon, of Leadenhall-street , ti ti. iIoFFNIAx —On the Ist inst., at Sonthampton-stt ed. 1" ' 1 °ll-'5- let bury-square, Lewis Hoffman, Esq., of the Inner r.l'etr , P aged 52. o, ; t MANNING—On the 2,1 inst., at The Limes, West Bo - John Manning, Esti., aged 91. MAcLuitcAs—On the 2d inst., at Bath, S. J. Maclur ol3l Esq., of .Dawlish, Devon, aged 43. Ross—On the 29th ult., at Dover, Colonel Ross, conminci.. ing Royal Engineers, aged 53. &O . WEALL —On the 2d inst., at Rugby House, Pinne r, min Weal', Esq., aged 83. London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM A1 401°1 112, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tas SUN Oalce, g 4° of Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the Co Daiddleq9L+Weiai3eSday, March 4, 1868. Ate' After After Loudon S Luxe' High -c &c. PHI SENT OFF On and .UL to 0 K IN, This ce Prize Med It is Pui Sold in the Agent, 8, ( Observe halY§ LL WE Unpree ( tongs, Mr LISKIRD, ITIcKEN F Transform Bishop'l Miss B ror Full o;c the Great The do in the prii at Mitchel St. Jam es o'clock. Special A'ing, and VAN] N- 1 Mr. Evenin g and "Mc Evening at 7 ; cot CAN] LTC Pause at Indian IT Tho greo Rand, (1( toruirnist Stalls an, After After After After After After TLII IVlii A POll CHAIM T 4; from Sitti. Admissi Open fr( evening. ARG' This ma having b( by ➢iessrs for the A' Solo Corn Up r number o or unfurn hoods of square. notT3Es or PRO' D. all deserii for °nth' tions o "umPhfri transter r 1,1 4 Roll; SPAN Al speedily' ss. 6d stam ps. __ all ahem NVO This pre h ours, rE for 60 s ChemistE HMI curls Lai Bold at 3 and 144 A. colour in fectly na 6 d•; sent ClietnistE ttAI moves 81 Without ( 611 ; eenl sk VEGET aallowne, sta naps. _ a 2l Chem lIEALTII 1)17