The Sun. — London, England, 1868-05-19 00:00:00

SPlElTormltystfe - nuitimid: Another Ministerial crisis has come upon us, says the Times, on the passing of an amendment proposed by Mr. Bouverie, to the effect that the payment of rates be not required for a voter in &Aland. The leading journal finds it difficult to believe that the vote on Mr. Bouverie's amendment can be at as final. If it were, the con sequences cannot be evaded ; but there are strong reasons for holding that the decision was not perfectly deliberate. The numbers on each side shew how thin the committee wag, especially when it is remembered that nearly 420 members took part in the earlier division on Mr. Barter's instruction. The vote has every appearance of having been hasty, and the speakers on the amendment were few and brief. It seems also to have been not understood that the question of rating as involved in the Scotch Bill is totally different from the question raised last year in the discussions on the English Act. The effect of the measure of last summer was undoubtedly to produce a great alteration in the system of local rating. It reversed, as was said at the time, the policy of much recent legislation by compelling the separate rating of householders in par liamentary boroughs. The proposal of the Scotch Bill did not require any such violent change of an esta blished. system. The enfranchising clause conferred the franchise on every householder rated and paying his rates, but, as there is no practice of compounding in Scotland, the effect of the clause was to give the franchise to every householder who paid his rates. Those only would lose the privilege who were so poor as to be excused the burden of rates, and the franchise would be that pure ratepaying franchise, unencumbered by any compounding enforced by Mr. Henley last year. It is hard to believe the House of Commons thinks that • ratepaying is an unnecessary condition for the admis sion of householders to the parliamentary register. Little more than twelve months ago the proposal to enfranchise every householder who satisfied this modest qualification would have been looked upon as revolu tionary. The principle of requiring payment of rates as a condition for the electoral franchise was, indeed, no novelty invented by Mr. Disraeli. It is contained in the great Act of 15 5 2, and has always since been insisted upon, except so f ar as if was varied by the admission under the Compounding .Lets of the landlord instead of the tenant as the person :raking the actual payment. The members of the com mittee were, however, in an impatient mood, and tits arenments addressed to them fell on unwilling ears. Ike Lilice hoped the knot of all difficulties would be cues I,r the acceptance of Mr. Bouverie's amendment, and -Ails hope is not an unfair expression of the temper of those who took part in the vote. They were weary of the vast; phrase "poor rates ;" they thought in their despera. tion that the admission or exclusion of a " residuus.* of householders so poor as to be excused participation in local burdens was a trifle where so much haC been granted, and they clamoured for prompt execution, satisfied that things were " going to the bad" ari'd it was best to have done with them as soon as possible. Impe tuosity is not an uncommon characteristic of the House of Commons when re-assembling in the evening, but it is - sometimes followed by recantation in the morning. It is certain that no one yesterday afternoon seriously consi dered the character of Mr. 13ouverie's amendment, the general impression being that it would come on too late for discussion last night, and if any one had ventured to de clare that it would be accepted by the committee at an early hour lie would not have been believed. The Post observes that the necessary connection of payment of rates and exercise of the franchise may be said to be the mast to which Mr. Disraeli has nailed his colours, and when the Chairman announced that the rating clause in the Scotch Bill had been re jected by 118 votes against 96, the Premier said that it became necessary for her Majesty's Government to reconsider their position, and moved to report progress, Once more, therefore, we have a Ministerial crisis. The event is certainly not unusual, and the public are becoming accustomed to what is almost of weekly occurrence. Hitherto Mr. Disraeli has been content to i• carry on the Government at the dictates of Opposition. It remains to be seen whether, in dealing with the Scotch Reform Bill, he will continue to do so. More than once the hint was thrown out to him, in the short debate which supervened on his motion of adjournment, that he could not do better than bow to the wishes of the House, and carry the bill in the form most pleasing to the majority. Many will think it by no means improbable that he should eagerly snatch at the suggestion. The Daily News observes that the ratepaying principle appears to have some life in it ; for Mr. Disraeli intimated that though it had been his desire to meet the wishes of the House, yet the results of the division were not what he had anticipated, and, he left it to be inferred, might be what the House did not anticipate. But what result can a Minister in a minority anticipate ex cept defeat ? If it is Mr. Disraeli's desire to meet the wishes of the House, he must acquiesce in its decisions. He will, doubtless, do so ulti mately ; and it is hard to see what is gained by delaying the progress of the bill, and affecting to take time for the consideretion of the course which he will take under a contingency for which he mast have heen prepared. A defeat more or less, and the surrender of another vital principle, can make very little difference to a Government v. - hich lives by defeats and by the extinction of its vital principles. Another long journey to take counsel with his sovereign is quite unnecessary ; and Mr. Disraeli will do well to think twice before putting her Majesty and the country to superfluous trouble. The Herald declares that if there could be any further reason for wishing for the dissolution of the present Par liament at the earliest possible opportunity it would be afforded by the factious pertinacity with which the majority which now blindly follows the lead of Mr. Glad stone persists in stultifying, one after another, the resolu tions voted, the principles solemnly affirmed, in the same House and by similar majorities last year. But there are grave practical objections to a dissolution of Parliament which must be followed after a few months by another general election. A Parliament elected during the next fortnight would be a makeshift assembly at the best—one in which the country would have no confidence, which could not be depended on for the settlement of any question of moment. Yet it is to such a precipice of immediate dissolution that the Opposition are apparently bent on driving the Government. Is this Government placidly to accept the negation of all its propositions for the conduct of affairs? Is it to allow the absolute reversal, in the Scotch Reform Bill and the collateral issues which arise from it, of the principles which were accepted last year as cardinal points in any general scheme of Reform ? If it declines to accept these -votes of the Liberal majority it has but two courses open to it. It must either resign or dissolve Parliament. If it did not resign at the time when a majority of sixty was against it on a most vital question—one which threatens the very bases of the Constitution in Church and State— at the time when its resignation was offered to the Queen, it can hardly resign now when it is being harassed and defeated on a succession of matters of detail, important enough in themselves, but less momentous than that busi ness of the Irish Establishment. It cannot resign now for the same reason that it did not resign then I because it feels certain that the sense of the country is in its favour ; because it believes that the enlarged constituencies of the new Reform Bill will reverse, when appeal is made to them, the action of a House of Commons in its dotage; because it knows that throughout the length and breadth of the country a strong current of popular feeling is setting in, and daily gathering strength in favour of the old laws and institutions of the realm, and against the revolutionary policy of Mr. Gladstone and his followers. Her Majesty's present advisers, who safely and skilfully pioneered the country last year through the most perilous political crisis of modern times, are holding office much against their own interest and wishes, pending the goodwill of the Queen and the people, for the sake of the Queen, the people, and the Constitution of the country. The Standard atteir pts to explain the real character of the recent collision between the House and the Government. Ministers, it says, have not changed : the House has. In 1866 there was a majority of 11 against Mr. Gladstone. In 1867 there was a majority of 20 in favour of Mr. Dis raeli. Now, on the same ground, a majority of 21 pro nounces against the principles they had accepted last year, and a majority ranging from sixty downwards sup ports Mr. Gladstone invarious side attacks upon the Govern ment. From such a state of things it follows that Ministers cannot be responsible for the legislation of a House which pays no respect to them, or to the decisions at which itself arrived last year under their guidance. If, indeavi they could fairly be expected to resign, then they might be held answerable for refusing to transfer their trust to a Minister who could really lead the House. But considering that it is not two years since this same House defeated and ejected Mr. Gladstone, it can hardly claim a right to restore him at its pleasure. It supported Ministers last year, and Ministers have certainly done nothing between that time - and this to forfeit its support. On the contrary, they have directed the affairs of the country with confessed ability and judgment ; their foreign policy has been universally admired ; they have almost crushed the Fenian conspiracy ; and they have carried a most diffi cult and costly war to a conclusion unexpectedly complete , brilliant, and expeditious. Their rish ecclesiastical policy is what it was known last year to be • their Scotch Reform Bill is that which the H ouse was last' year ready to accept ; the principles now rejected are those which the House last year approved. The change of conduct then, which has brought the House into antagonism with the Ministry is one which is purely capricious, if it be not purely factious ; and to neither the caprice of Parlia ment nor the maineuvres of faction ought a Ministry t o yield. asks, remain iNnvo_e7tkellemavftthere Can Mr. Disraeli, tho his policy lees been so coinielyar.e:ersedo9ie right lung-sufferin; . tenacity office which honour able gentleman ie reniarkab e. e , know also the game he desires to play with the bigots on the Irish Church c l uestiOn. The Prime Minister hold'sotiice that he may be serviceable to Mr. Benjamin Disraeli an object he esteems much niore worthy - of devotion than either Church or State. His celle.i e ues, with perhaps one excep t so completely political nobodies that they can safely:are so . cal culate on, escap:ng any lasther odium from their nisi,i cance. the one colleague whose political character was formerly respected y has apparently ziven up to I)isracli what was meant for mankind. Ile probably imagines that by attending somewhat ostentatiously to the business of his department he can escape much of the responsibility attaching to a Minority Ministry. In this lie will find himself rrCstaleen, just as I\ll.. Disraeli will dis cover that it is vain to attempt to cover up ignominious defeats by speeches half accepting the result which lie knows to be inevitable. It is a matter of little consequence whether the policy of the Government is surrendered like the Abyssinian captives, after a preliminary contest in the lobbies, or their defeat takes place after the storming c' t 4 the vita lel. In either case they are politically discre dited, and by all the Laws of constitutional warfare they 9Urikt tQ Krrencier at clisccrcCult: ----- • THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH. The Australian papers received supply interesting details relative to the atrocious attempt on the life of the Duke of Edinburgh. The Sydney Morning Herald, afterAile scribing the attack on the Prince, says : The scene which followed almost defies description. No sooner had Mr. Vial grasped the man who had fired the shots than several other gentlemen also seized him ; and, had it not been for the closing in around them of fte police and other persons, they would speedily have placed him beyond the reach of the law courts. The people shouted, " Lynch him," " Hang him," " String him up," and so on, and there was a general rush to get at him. Unfor tunately for Mr. Vial, some of the people mis took him for the Prince's dastardly assailant, and for a few seconds he was treated unmercifully. He was pulled backwards by the hair of his head—he was kicked and beaten, and his hair and whiskers torn out by the handful—and it was not until some gentlemen who knew Mr. Vial came to his assistance that he was released. In the meantime the police, headed by Superintendent Orridge, got hold of the assassin, and they had the greatest difficulty in preventing the infuriated people from tearing him limb from limb. The task of putting the prisoner on board the ship was not an easy one, and it was fully ten minutes before ;they got him on to the wharf. By that time all the clothing from the upper part of his body was torn off, • his eyes, face, and body were much bruised, and blood was flowing from various wounds ; and when he was dragged 'on to the deck of the Paterson, which was lying at the wharf, he appeared to be utterly unconscious. No sooner was he on board than a number of sailors had a rope ready to string him up, and it was only by the interference of Lord Newry that his life was spared. Some of the police were very roughly used, Detective Powell getting about the worst of it. In the scuffle he fell over some stones, and had a chance of being trampled to death. The people out of whose hands the prisoner had been rescued immediately gave vent to their disappointment, and at an indignation meeting, summarily convened, deter mined to bring him back from the steamer, and despatch him at the scene of the crime. A rush was then made for the steamer, which had just hauled off a few feet from the wharf, and they shouted to the captain to haul in. For a moment this officer appeared to waver, but the Hon. John Hay, who was on the bridge, doubtless divining the intentions of the crowd, peremptorily ordered the captain to haul off. This he did, and the vessel accordingly pro ceeded on her way to Sydney. Upon the arrival of the Paterson at Sydney the prisoner was landed and conveyed in charge of Mr. Orridge to the gaol. He made no secret of his intention to have assasi nated the Prince. 'While in charge of the police he said to one member of the force, " I have made a mess of it, and all for no good." To another, " I don't care for death ; lam sorry I missed my aim. I made a mess of it ;" and to another, " I am a Fenian. God save Ireland." He also said, " I have done my duty, and can die for my country." He then added, "It can't be helped now ; I I'ave made a mess of it." The Colonial Secretary, Mr. Parkes, soon afterwards proceeded to the gaol, saw the prisoner, and asked him how he came to commit such an outrage, to which he replied, " Come, come, it is not fair to ask me such a question as that ; the Prince is all right ; the Prince will live; you need sot fear about him ; it's only a side wound. I shall be hanged ; but the Prince will live." The Colonial Secre tary, taking with him two police-constables, went to the Clarendon Hotel, where the prisoner had slept. The people there knew nothing about the affair beyond hear ing a rumour that the Prince had been shot. They ad mitted that such a man as the prisoner was described to be had lived there, and the room in which he had slept was at once searched. Some articles of wearing apparel were found in a broken box and in a table drawer. In various places (in the drawer and in the pockets of his clothes) were found percussion caps, detonating cartridges, wadding for revolvers, a Douay Bible, a Roman Catholic Prayer-book, and a number of other religious books, in which his name was inscribed ; also a crucifix. Having secured these things, the Colonial Secretary ascertained that O'Farrell had been in Sydney from about Christmas last, and that whilst the Prince has been here, whenever the other lodgers in the house spoke of him this man got out of temper and denounced him. He went out on Tuesday evening to go to the fancy dress ball at the Prince of Wales Theatre, but for some reason did not get in, ani came back. The Colonial Secretary also ascertained that he had lived at Tierney's, Currency Lass Hotel, corner of Pitt and Hunter streets, and to that house they proceeded. Here, in a box said to belong to O'Farrell they found a number of articles of clothing and some written papers, from which it was shown that he had resided in Melbourne. A letter from Melbourne, dated March 31, says : "The family of the O'Farrells came hither from Dublin 25 years ago or more. The old man, who was a butcher in Eliza betli•ntrccb, h..d two ouus and two da. Q :nte.rs. From the ❑ature of the youngest son's late performance, you will imagine that he must have followed his father's business. Very different, however, his profession was intended to be. He was to be a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, and at 20 was sent to Europe to qualify for it. He had been so apt a scholar that at sixteen he made a speech at a meeting of the St. Patrick's Society here, in March 1846, that called forth praise from our oldest colonist, Mr. J. P. Fawkner. The speech was 'On Edu cation.' However, the education and the priestly studies led to nothing, for O'Farrell came back here as he went, and, for the Church, took to store-keeping at Ballarat with one Kennedy. Hay, corn, and straw were their specialities. They prospered, and a liking for the bottle seized Kennedy, and he drank and died. O'Farrell was left alone in every sense, for it was one of his peculiarities that he talked of his vows of celibacy, taken on his going in for the priesthood, having been always kept. In one of the mining manias at Bal larat he lost all his property and took to the bottle. He often talked of suicide, and on his two sisters, who are well married here, going up to Ballarat to aid him, he attempted the life of one of them with a sword-stick. His relatives kept him at St. Kilda, near Melbourne, for some time, and then let him go for a change to Sydney, sending him remittances. What he did there the world will know." TRIAL OP THE ASSASSIN. On Friday, the 13th March, a special court was held before Mr. Voss and other magistrates, and the charge of attempt to murder was heard. The face of the prisoner (who was attired in the prison dress of white canvas, his own clothes having been torn off him by the enraged people at Clontarf before the police could get him on board the steamer) presented a sickening sight. The left side of the face was very much swelled, and the right side cut and bruised in several places, whilst his right eye was black, protruding, and closed, and his left livid with bruises, and capable of being only partially opened. The skin down the front of his nose was abrased, and that feature was also considerably swollen. Unable to see except with difficulty, yet he was observant of the proceedings, and although he asked a few questions, he was never disturbed from the almost stolid indifference to the various statements of the manner in which his crime was committed. On the next day Sir William Manning was examined. The prisoner declined to ask the witness any questions, but said : "I would make a remark. If he had not come forward, I would have shot the duke a second time.". The whole of the depositions having been read by Mr. Lees, Mr. Voss called upon the prisoner to stand up, and then asked him if he had anything to say, at the same time administering the usual caution before committal. Prisoner : I have nothing to say but that the task of executing the duke was sent out and allotted to me. The Crown Solicitor : Will you repeat what you have just said? - Prisoner : The task of executing the Prince was sent out to me, but I failed, and I am not very sorry that I did fail. That is all I have to say. He was then formally committed to take his trial at the Central Criminal Court, to be holden at Darlinghurst on the 26th. _ _ On Thursday, the 26th March, O'Farrell was brought up for trial at a special sitting of the Central Criminal Court, held at Darling,hurst, his Honour Mr. Justice Cheeke presiding. Mr. Attorney-General Martin, with Mr. Solicitor- General Isaacs, appeared for the Crown ; prisoner was defended by Mr. Aspinall, with whom was associated Mr. Dailey. The prisoner, when placed in the dock, was very much improved in general appearance since his committal, the discoloration and swelling' of various parts of his face Laving passed away, leaving a somewhat haggard expres sion. He was neatly dressed in a suit of light tweed. The trial was postponed on the ground of the absence of witnessa necessary f or th e d e f ence. The proceedings were resumed on Monday, March 30. lor the defence several witnesees were called, who proved that O'Farrell suffered from epileptic tits and delirium tiCiiienS, and that he had on one occasion only spoken in vour of Fenianism. The Crown called rebutting witnesses, who proved that in frequent conversations he expressed himself rationally ; also, that they had heard him defending Fenianipm gene rally, and the Clerkenwell outrage particularly. No pro- Fpcional witnesses were called. The jury, after a deliberation which lasted for an hour returned a verdict of guilty. O'Farrell, when asked if he. had anything to say why sentence should not b e pronounced, replied, in a firm tone, " No, sir, nothing." His Honour then passed sentence of death in thuwai foqn, and_the prisoner wa removed, _ • THE SUN, LONDON, 'TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 19, 1868. PROGRESS OF IMPEACHMENT. April 25.—The attendance was much larger as the Hon. AV. S. Groesbeck was to speak as counsel for the President. The business commenced by postponing till Monday the previous motion to ad mit official reporters during the final debate. Senator Sumner proposed an order that the Senate vote on each article at noon on the day following the close of the argument, but being objected to by Reverdy Johnson it was laid over for one day. Senator Sumner then proposed two new rules with reference to the verdict, the first directing the vote when taken by the presiding officer shall be separate upon each article, each Senator when called by name, " Mr. -- how say you, is the respondent Guilty or Not Guilty, as charged in -- Article of Impeachment?" rising, and answering Guilty or Not Guilty. The second proposes that on a conviction by the Senate, it shall be the duty of the presiding officer forthwith to pronounce the removal from office of the convicted person according to the re quirements of the Constitution, and any further judgment shall be on the order of the Senate. Mr. Sumner asserted that he derived the proposed rules from the practice of the Senate in previous Ameri can Impeachment trials. Again, Reverdy Johnson objected and they were laid over. Mr. Groesbeck laboured under a severe cold, which injuriously affected the delivery. Although a native of New York, his practice being confined to the West, he was not well known in the Eastern States, and many came to hear him. He commenced as usual with the President's counsel by rebutting the argu ment of the Managers, that the Senate is not on such an occasion a Court, but a Senate bound by no laws, but a law unto itself. In each of the five Impeachment trials the Senate had been uniformly described as a Court. He then took up the main question—the President's right to remove Mr. Stan ton, notwithstanding the Civil Tenure Act. He went over the same ground as the preceding counsel for the defence. He showed that the effect of the Civil Tenure Act was to eject Mr. Stanton from office when passed, and the President by that Act had a right to name a person for the post thus va cated. If the Act does not apply to Cabinet officers appointed by Mr. Lincoln, he argued that Mr. Johnson's right was clear to remove such officers, thus affirming the position that under any circum stances the Tenure-of-Office Act gave Mr. Johnson in Mr. Stanton's case the power of removal, either applying to him, in which case it removed him, or not applying to him, in which case the President was not bound by it, and therefore could not be impeached for violating it. He then discussed Mr. Johnson's motives, showing that he could have no criminal intent, as he had used every means to bring the case before the Courts, being foiled by Mr. Stanton's trickery and the duplicity of a corrupt judge. He directed the attention of the Court to the exclusion of the evidence of the Cabinet Ministers while they admitted that of an obscure man from Delaware, and had taken the vague hints of an egotistical old man like Adjutant-General Thomas. By what law, he asked, were the utterances of a President as a private citizen made criminal? Did Congress desire to set up a standard of taste in the matter of speech ? He passed a glowing eulo gium on the character of Andrew Johnson, whose only crime was to pluck a thorn out of his heart which the Senate had fastened there, and he thus concluded, after an address of four hours, "Andrew Johnson has ever walked in the path and by the light of the Constitution. The mariner, tempest tossed on the seas, is not more sure to turn to the stars for guidance than that man in the trials of public life to look to the star of the Constitution. He does love the Constitution. It has been the study of his life. He is not learned or scholarly, like many of you. Ile is not a man of many ideas or much speculation, but he is a man of intelligence. He is a patriot second to no one in the measure of his patriotism. He may be full of errors. I will not canvass now his views. He loves his country, and, I be lieve, would die for it if need be. His courage and his patriotism are not without illustration. Mr. Johnson went into the very borders of the war, and there he served his country long and well. Which of you have done more ? Not one. There is one among you whose service, as I well know, cannot be overestimated, and I withdraw all comparison ; but IL utiough LO :say that hiz bervices were greatly needed, and it seems hard, it seems cruel, that he should be struck here upon these miserable techni calities, or that anybody who has served his country, and borne himself well and bravely, should be treated as a criminal and condemned upon these miserable charges. Even if he had committed a crime against the laws, his services entitle him to some consideration. but he has precedents for every thing he has done, excellent precedents. The voices of the great dead come to us from their graves sanctioning his course. All our past history ap proves it. How can you single out this man now, in this condition of things, and brand him before the country?" The Senate then adjourned to Monday. April 27.—The Chamber was crowded to hear the speech which Thad. Stevens has made so strong a point of delivering. Business commenced by calling up for consideration the proposed rules. To the first, admitting reporters to the final debate in the Senate, an amendment was offered to allow 15 minutes for remarks on each charge to each Senator, but it was defeated by 30 to 19. It was then moved that each Senator should get half an hour—defeated by 34 to IG—and the final conside ration of this, as well as of the rules offered by Senator Sumner, as to the method of voting on the tinal decision, were postponed till the arguments of lawyers had been heard. At first Mr. Stevens, who stood up at the Secretary's desk, spoke firmly, but he soon faltered, and in ten minutes he wa compelled to sit down, though he continued to read from his chair for a quarter of an hour, when, being fairly exhausted, General Butler took up the reading and finished the speech within the hour. It was solely devoted to the eleventh charge added to the Articles of Impeachment by the earnest advice of that Manager. He considered that all required for a conviction was to show that the President had violated a law. He then proved that the law had been violated by the President, who had sworn to obey the Constitution and take care that the laws were faithfully executed. He was neither a lawmaker nor a judge, his business being " to obey the commands of the sovereign power of the nation, and to see that others should obey them, and any attempt to escape obedience was in direct violation of his official oath, in other words, a misprison of perjury. I accuse him, in the name of the House of Representatives, of having perpetrated that foul offence against the laws and interest of his country." The respondent " might as well call on the Managers to prove the shape, size, and colour of the devil, as to prove the President's intention." The acts of the President were shown to be full of contradiction, sometimes recognizing the law, at others attempting to nul lify it. Andrew Johnson had illegally usurped the powers of Congress, assumed dictatorial powers in the South, and would, had he been permitted, have made himself absolute. He described him as a political trickster, the offspring of assassination, and from the hon. Manager's description, his term was likely to end, as it had commenced, in assassi nation. " Wretched man," said Mr. Stevens, " standing at bay surrounded by a cordon of living men each with the axe of the executioner uplifted for his just punishment." Appealing to the Senate, he asked, will any Senator vote for his acquittal on the ground of the unconstitutionality of the Act. Not for anything would any of them suffer them selves to be tortured on the gibbet of everlasting obloquy. How long and dark would be the track of infamy which must mark his name and that of his posterity. He eulogized Secretary Stanton, and maintained that the permission to continue in the office on Mr. Johnson's accession was tantamount to a nomination. The Senators elected by Re publicans who had sustained the President's policy were said to be the leaders of a new rebellion, to have put on the faded uniform of grey and become Johnsonrh eisc Whiler b u i u t r s i t n ht g uhosi fmsergeantsgo indignation forse treacheryJohnson'swawas Doolittle, cow a s n h a b n b dy others,ar m y reserved to h for s p a i l t n y d Andrew 1 Manager declared to be km than the betrayal by Judas Iscariot, who betrayed only a single indi vidual, while Johnson had betrayed a whole na tion. Mr. Stevens concluded with these words : " In what part of the Constitution or laws does he find it to be his duty to search out for defective laws that stand recorded upon the statutes, in order that he may advise their infraction? Who was ag grieved by the Tenure-of-Office Bill that he was authorized to use the name and the funds of the Government to relieve ? Will he be so good as to tell us by what authority be became the obstructor of an unrepealed law, instead of its executor, espe cially a law whose constitutionality he had twice tested ? If there were nothing else than his own statement he deserves the contempt of the American people and the punishment of its highest tribunal. If he were not willing to execute the laws passed by the American Congress, and nnrepealed, let him resign the office which was thrown upon him by a horrible convulsion, and retire to his village obscurity. Let him not be so swollen by pride and arrogance, which sprang from the deep misfor tune of his country, as to attempt an entire revo lution of its internal machinery, and the disgrace of the trusted servants of his lamented predecessor." The Hon. Thomas Williams, of Pennsylvania, fol lowed. The galleries, crowded to hear Mr. Stevens, rapidly thinned. Mr. Williams spoke for the re mainder of the day, and the Senate adjourned on his complaining of fatigue. He began by compli menting the Assembly trying the case, and he de clared that the verdict would send thrills of joy to an afflicted land, or rack it anew with throes of anarchy and despair. This was not a quarrel be.. tween two officers, but an issue between the Execu tive and the American people. The great motive of all Andrew Johnson's acts was to force the rebel States into the Union on his own plan, though against the express will of Congress and of the loyal people. His offences and usurpations were de scribed, and the greatest crime, Mr. Williams con sidered, was the attempt to remove Mr. Stan ton in violation of the law of his oath. The defence that the Act was unconstitutional was a defiance and challenge to Congress, and he as serted it as settled that Congress had the right to take away from the President the power of removal from office. No precedent quoted by the defence was of binding force ; but even if it were, the present Congress had as good a right to construe the Constitution as its predecessors, nor could it be asserted that all wisdom had died with their fathers. The general power of Congress he showed by numerous laws fixing the tenure of cer tain offices at specified numbers of years, and at great length he argued that it was no justification for the President to assert that his acts were sup ported by his Cabinet. In removing a well-quali fied officer because he disliked him personally in itself deserved impeachment. The President could not play fast and loose with an Act, when it suits him recognizing its validity, and when it does not, deliberately violating it. He likened the Presi dent's disgraceful speeches to Nero fiddling when Rome was in flames, exclaiming, "and our culprit would find in the Senate a censor more stern than Cato." April 28.—Senator Sumner again proposed a ru l e relative to the final decision, providing that, afte r conviction by the two-thirds majority, a simple majority only shall be required to decide the punishment imposed on Andrew Johnson. The Democratic Senators at once and strongly objected, as this would leave to the extreme section in case of conviction, even on a single charge, the power of disqualifying for office in future as well as at pre sent removal ; and it was laid on the table. After Mr. Willi am s h a d concluded his address, Ge nera l Altaßut v. lerd e sac, denyinguss discussed the assertion that a n y o f thedth e q uestion of the gu ano i s l an d , Managers had been connected with it. He allowed that they had given professional opinions as to the justice of the claim. But as we cannot see what the Alta Vela affair has to do with the President's case, which is long enough in itself, we prefer to treat that matter elsewhere. Mr. Evarts then rose and spoke on behalf of the President. The galleries were crowded, and during the four days he continued to speak he rivetted the attention of all. It was gene rally considered that in this address he had wore regard to his own oratorical fame than to the inte rest of his client. But he excused himself_ anasssest forcibly, for so lightly touching on the chief legal points, by stating that his colleagues had already minutely argued them out. He referred to the grave nature of the case, and the impossibility of human knowledge foreseeing the results which would flow from it, and from these considerations he urged circumspection, patience, and impartiality on the Court. He sketched the former Impeach ment trials, showing their comparative insignifi cance. In case of acquittal, Congress, the Execu tive, and the Judiciary, resuming their functions, will continue as before, but disturbances will arise in case of conviction ; one branch of the Govern ment being divested of its prerogatives, and the President succeeded by a member of the deposing body, which was, in truth, the trial of the Consti tution. Referring to the Supreme Court as the respected and cherished guardian of the people's liberty, he said that Congress had recently pre vented the exercise of its rightful jurisdiction in defence of a sacred right ; and that Congress also was now attacking the other co-ordinate branch of the Government; and that the people looked to this trial fora decision which would restrain the aggres sive Legislature within its limits. The President's oath of office was not merely the common oath, faith fully to discharge its duties, but included the sus preme obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. The people have formed and will adhere to the determination that this oath shall not be taken in vain. They are converts to no theories of Congressional omnipotence, and when they hear that this sword of impeachment is drawn, they wish to know what the crime is with which the President is charged, and for which it is sought to depose him. They find his crime to be the removal of a member of his Cabinet, and are told it became a crime, because Congress, for the first time in the history of the Government, has made it so. They also find that na force was employed, and no re moval made, excepting on paper, and this, too, for the express purpose of obtaining a decision of the Supreme Court, to prevent which vigorous action is at once taken by those who bring the accusation. " In short," said Mr. Evarts," the people see that it is a question of supremacy between Congress and the Constitution. They did not hold to the idea that the Constitution was made only for our infancy, but felt that it was to be the guide and bond of our natural manhood, and were determined that law should continue to be the guardian of liberty." " Nobody is wiser thin the intrepid manager (Gen. Butler) who assumed the first assault on this Court, and who k new the only way he could pre vent his case from being turned out of Court was to turn the Court out of his case. (Laughter.) it was said there is no word in the Constitu tion which gives the slightest colouring to the idea that this is a Court, excepting that in this particu lar case the Chief Justice must preside. So that the Chief Justide's gown is the only shred or patch e ven that is here, and owing to th e c h arac t er o f of justice th a t t h ere i s w ithin these walls. But it was only ac c id en t a l that the inculpated offender. This, it was said, is a Senate, to hold an inquest of office on Andrew Johnson. But it had not been ob served in the rules, that each Senator is to rise in his place, and say, Office found,' or, Office not found ;' for, probably, every Senator does not ex pect to find it. (Laughter.) If this is not an altar of justice, it is merely an altar of sacrifice. The Managers had taken no pains to conceal the party spirit and p ar t y h a t e which had hurried them through the preparations for this procedure. One of the Manage rs h a d spo k en of the Senators as heads men standing on the scaffold with their swords ready, they having already tried the culprit on the night of February 21, when the Senate passed the Resolutions declaring Stanton's removal illegal." He read front the debates on the formation of the Consti tution to show that the power to impeach and try the President was granted with hesitation to the Senate, and that only because of the reliance placed upon their observance of a judicial oath. The furies in old mythology had charge of the sanctity of an oath. The imaginations of the prophets of the wa x j am glac tia e dti e iolemigty of as oath, sad _ have peopled the places of punishment with oath breakers. All the tortures and torments of history are applied to public servants who, in betrayal of sworn trusts, have disobeyed this high, this neces sitous obligation, without which the whole fabric of society falls into pieces. He knew not how it was, in our moral constitution, that an oath lifted to Heaven can draw from the great swollen cloud of passion, interest, and bate, its charge. He knew not why, but so it was ; and he was sure that loud and long as these honourable Managers may talk, although they speak in the voice of all the people of the United States, with their bold persuasions that Senators should not obey a judicial oath, he could bring against it but a single sentence and a single voice, but that sentence is a commandment, and that voice speaks with awe: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain." The moth may consume the ermine of that Supreme Court whose robe the Chief Jus tice wears ; rust may corrode the centre of the Senate's power ; time even shall devour the people, whose presence, beating against the doors of the Senate-house, the Managers so much love to taunt and menace ; but as to the word he had spoken, heaven and earth may pass away, but no jot or tittle of it will fail. He discussed the way in which the case had been opened for the Managers by Gen. Butler, who had used invective for argument, and had attempted to make it stand in the place of law and of fact. The Chinese method of warfare was the science of concussion, the blowing of trumpets, the sounding of gongs, shrieks and groans, but it had been re served for our day to see an attempt at another kind of concussion. It was first directed against the stone walls of Fort Fisher, and was utterly in effective. Not satisfied with that, the Manager who opened the case tried an ineffectual concussion against the walls of the Senate. The defence had shown, however, that the power of concussicn had given way to discussion. Mr. Evarts then consi dered the Manager's definition of impeachable of fences, and argued at length to show that no actions could be so considered which did not proceed from malice and an evil intention, quoting, among others, the language of Burke at the trial of War ren Hastings, that the assertion and proof of evil intent were indispensable. From this he proceeded to the discussion of what he termed the chief charge in the indictment against the President—the breach of the "Tenure-of-Office Act." Quoting from the debates in the Senate on the passage of this Act be argued that that body did not look upon it as a penal measure which might result in the impeach ment of an officer who might disregard it. He con tended that a breach of the statute was not impeach able, and was not subject to jurisdiction in the Senate, but only in the great forum of the people upon the hustings. If the Senate could be convinced of this, then it was evident that the Managers had at tempted to mix what was purely political with what was essentially judicial. He next urged that the Tenure-of-Office Act did not cover Stanton's case, and that under it the President clearly had power to remove Cabinet officers appointed by Mr. Lincoln. But even if the law did cover Stanton's case, and if the removal of that officer had been actually effected, no change in the relations of the War De partment to the rest of the Government would have ensued, and hence the mere act could not be consi dered as dangerous to the public safety. On the contrary, the public safety would have been bene fited, because the relations existing between the Pre sident and Stanton were prejudicial to a proper working of the Government. The crime therefore consisted only in the technical infraction of a law which was belieied to be unconstitutional, and which relating only to offences not penal, the Presi dent's action under it could not be considered even as a crime. Mr. Evarts then considered the ques tion of what was meant by an " unconstitutional law," and said it was a paradox. There could be no offence in violating the provisions of such a mere piece of paper. The Supreme Court had held that an unconstitutional law was void from its pas sage, and any one had the right to initiate proceed ings to test the constitutionality of a doubtful statute. In this he claimed no greater right for the President than for a private individual. 110 aa a uea that the President had made a proper removal, without force or violence, in order to assert his right to act under the Constitution, which, Ls he believed, was violated by the law in questian. Numerous authorities were cited to disprove the assertion that a formal violation of stattites is im peachable; and the counsel added that the principles of common sense were opposed to any such view. He was surprised at the Managers' denunciation of those who peacefully resisted laws which they deemed unconstitutional. It was the duty of every Ministerial officer to raise a question in favour of the Constitution, and this was in the highest degree the duty of the President, the sworn special de fender of the Constitution. Mr. Evarts then went on to say that this tribunal being a Court the Pre sident was to be tried only on charges supported by law and evidence, and not by common rumour. Much that had been advanced by the Managers must therefore fall to the ground, and so must fall the articles based on charges which had been re peatedly rejected by the House as fair grounds of impeachment. In this case, where evidence had been so frequently suppressed, the enlargement of declamation and invective was more than usually improper. Congress had endorsed acts of Mr. Lincoln quite as much without the warrant of law as those of Mr. Johnson—such as suspending the Habeas Corpus in Florida, arresting the Maryland Legislature, and creating military commissions in time of peace. By endorsing these Acts Congress had confirmed the doctrine that motive must always be considered, and that the mere infraction of law was not in itself ground for punishment. Mr. Manager Boutwell had desired the President to be punished by being removed from earth to " a hole in the sky." This " astronomical punishment " might be proper, and if the Manager could get over the laws of nature he was sure the Constitution would not stand in the way, for removal from office was prescribed without limit as to the distance to which the culprit should be removed. (Laughter.) "I can think of no method but that of a convulsion of the earth that should project the deposed President to this infinitely distant space ; but a shock of na ture of so vast an energy and so great a result must unsettle even the so firm members of Congress. (Laughter.) How shall we accomplish it? Why, in the first place, nobody knows where that space is but the learned Manager himself—(laughter)—and he is the necessary deputy to execute the judgment of the Court. Let it then be provided that in case of your sentence of deposition and removal from office, the honourable the astronomical Manager shall take into his own hands the execution of the sentence, the President made fast to his broad and strong shoulders, and having essayed the flight by imagination, better prepared to execute it in form, taking advantage of ladders as far as ladders would go, to the top of this high Capitol, and spurning then with his feet the Goddess of Liberty, let him set out upon his flight (laughter), while the Houses of Congress and all the people of the United States shall shout sic itur ad astra.' (Laughter, long and continued.)" Mr. Evarts then considered the posi tion and powers of the President, and said that he was the direct representative of the people, from whom he held his trust. Broils and disturbances al ways result from accession to the Presidency. The excep tional weakness in the Presidential office is at present heightened by the extraordinary division of party strength in Congress, and of the constitutional safe guard of Executive independence is unavailing. To urge the unequal contest any further would be fatal to the true position of the Executive under the Con stitution. Dwelling at length upon the complica tion caused by political exasperations, he claimed that all these considerations were motives to delay impeachment as a cure for evils which political ac tion itself would remedy. He quoted au article from the AelV York Tribune as an example of the feeling entertained by many that impeachment was war ranted for political reasons, and argued to refute the view thus taken. Speaking of the unexampled political condition of the country, out of which have sprung the present proceedings, he referred to the chaos caused by rebellion and the unprecedented social condition wrought by the emancipation . of four millions of slaves. The question as to the part o be taken by the . different branches of the Cvo vernment and the proper application of the Consti tution and laws to the work of restoration were un tried, immensely difficult, and readily productive of honest differences of opinion. The essence of the Constitution was the authority of the people, and its arrangement of the relative power of the different branches of Government was based on the idea that the terms of authority granted were so short that evils could be patiently endured for a few years until tne people could by the ballot remedy them. The counsel considered that it was a grave reproach upon the wisdom and foresight of the founders of our Government to claim that a decision in favour of the President in this case would result in a mo narchy. The real danger was another sort, of the balances of the Constitution, whic!i are the relations of the weights of numbers and equality of States irrespective of population. He held that to make the Senate exclusive, instead of advisory, was to rob the people's majority of their rightful power. In this way small and thinly populated States would control the administration of the Government, against the will of those which cast overwhelming majorities of votes, an I the Presidential election would become a farce. Mr. Evarts supported his position by quotations from the elder Adams, Sher man, and others. He then considered various emergencies which might arise under the Tenure-of- Office Act, which makes certain officers permanent, and would render removal during a session of the Senate extremely difficult, if not impracticable. He proceeded to quote from debates in the Senate, when the bill was under consideration, the language of Messrs. Williams, Howard, and others, to show that its effect was to revolutionize the practice of the Government, and also quoted expressions to the effect that while the legislative construction had little weight, yetthe decision of constitutional questions by the supreme courts were authoritative. Mr. Evarts held the decisions of the Congress of 1789 were autho ritative, because confirmed by the Supreme Court, and also carried immense weight of themselves. He claimed that the debates of 1789 were exhaustive of the subject of the power of removal, and that the question was finally and definitely settled at that time. He also referred to Webster's declaration in 1835 that the question was settled; and in regard to the suggestion that the Congress of 1789 was in fluenced in its declarations by their high confidence in President Washington, Mr. Evarts asked if it were not possible that the present Congress had been influenced in the opposite manner by its opinions of the incumbent President. Mr. Evarts dwelt further upon the importance and the binding force of the decision of 1789, and that, as the pre sent law directly controverted it and the uniform practice of the last 80 years, doubts of its constitu tionality might naturally have arisen in the mind of the President, for which he could not be impeached. He read from the debates on the Fugitive Slave Law, in 1852, the language of Mr. Sumner, in which he quoted and indorsed Jackson's declaration that each department of the Government had a right to judge of the constitutionality of Acts in junctures not already covered by the Supreme Court decisions. To dismiss and depose a President for an attempt to maintain the Constitution, would be to make him the victim of Congress, and a martyr to the Constitution. Mr. Evarts proceeded to consider the attitude which the Senators occupy iu refer ence to this subject, and said that nothing was more abhorrent to every sense of justice than that a man should be a judge iu his own cause, or decide a question on which he had already been pre judiced. He held that if the Senate, in passing the resolution of concurrence the 21st of February, had pronounced the subject of the constitutionality of the law a political action, then they could not now consider it a judicial question. It would be extraordinary, almost inconceivable, to suppose they did not so consider it with the prospect of having to try the matter if ~it were judicial as a Court of Im peachment. It could not be possible that they did not regard it as a political question. He reminded them that the largest votes for the conviction of Judge Humphrey were on the articles charging him with having prejudiced a case and allowed a jury man to sit who acknowledged that he had formed an opinion. Again, they had an interest in the re sult. Twenty millions of dollars of the patronage and the powers of the Executive office were the prizes offered them for Conviction. Their political prejudices, too, he argued, joined with other con siderations to cause them to cast out as improper for their decision the charges alleging violation of their own law. Passing then to the general con sideration of the evidence introduced in support of the Articles of Impeachment he characterized it as absolutely insufficient, although the Managers had possessed every conceivable ad vantage in the pre liminary privileges of examining witnesses and in a hundred other ways. In support of the charge of obstructing reconstruction, there was the Parsons' despatch, while Wood, the office seeker, ',vas the only witness to uphold the accusation of abuse of the appointing power. The staple of their speeches consisted of matter twice rejected by tug house as not warranting impeachment. Yet Mr. Stevens thought the introduction of the eleventh Article in dispensable to conviction, as he said the Court would be green not to acquit on the other ten. Mr. But ler, however, contended that if conviction failed on the first, it would be useless to look to the ten others. To the Articles about the President's speeches, Mr. Evarts said there were two fatal ob jections—first, the speeches had reference only to a defunct Congress; and, second, they were offen sive only to rhetoric and good taste. He then ad verted in sarcastic terms to the language and con duct of the champion of propriety and decorum, and said that as he (Mr. Butler) had claimed that the practice of this tribunal was a standard, he would read from a certain debate which had occurred some time ago. it appeared that Mr. Sumner had called the President the enemy of his country, and indulged in invective which the Senate had almost unanimously declared was allow able and not out of order. (Laughter.) In illus tration of the Congressional standard of propriety and license of speech, Mr. Evarts also read the lan guage of Mr. Bingham and Mr. Butler in the House, when they accused each other of various crimes when the subject under debate was charity to the South. He then recited the apostle's description of charity. During all this portion of his speech, he was frequently interrupted by peals of laughter. He also referred to the expression of Mr. Bout well, characterizing the positions of Cabinet offi cers as serf-like, and argued at some length that the President, although deficient in rhetoric, had said nothing half so shocking to taste and pro priety as had been countenanced in the writings and speeches of Managers and others in official posi tions. He then took up the Emory Article, but gave it very brief attention, saying that it merited scarcely any, and passed to the Articles charging conspiracy. He ridiculed the idea of there being any suggestion of conspiracy in the communica tion of the President to General Thomas, when giving him his commission to uphold the Constitu tion and laws. Just as much hidden meaning w as in the words as in " chops and tomato sauce," but he claimed there was no application to this case of the laws under which the Articles are drawn. No proof was adduced of the employment of force or use of threats. He further combated the position of Mr. Boutwell, that the common law reached the case. In relation to the Articles setting forth the appointment of General Thomas, he argued that ad interim appointments do not rest upon the constitutional provisions relating to per manent appointments, but are controlled by the legislative enactments of 1795 and 1863, which he claimed fully warranted the President's action, ad vancing substantially the same arguments on this point as those presented by Messrs. Curtis and Groesbeck. He held further that even if the President was not acting under the laws, he com mitted no penal offences, for they provided no penalty, and the most that could be said would be that he was not supported by positive law, and that General Thomas could not hold his office. Mr. Evarts considered at length the laws of 1795 and 1863, bearing upon the appointments of ad interim officers, arguing that they gave the Presi dent full power to appoint an ad interim Secretary of War. President Lincoln had, in a precisely simi lar manner, appointed a Postmaster-General:ad interim, yet it : wad not regarded ae an impeachable offence; but, on the contrary, 30 Senators had signed a petition to President Lincoln asking him to do what he did. He quoted from speeches by Senator Sherman and others, when the " Tenure-of-Office" Act was under consideration, to show that they said it did not reach the case of any Cabinet officer. Upon this the President had acted, and it would be monstrous to convict him of crime by the same voices which gave utterance to and con curred in these authoritative declarations that the bill did not affect Stanton's case. This view 31r. Evarts advocated at length, and he also read a re port to the House, by Messrs. Schenck and others of the Judiciary Committee, taking the same gro und as the Senators he quoted, and this, he said, b o und the House to the same view of the scope of the bill as that announced in the Senate. In conclusion, be =dean eloquen t a ppeal for the President's acquittal, describing Andrew Johnson's humble origin, hie manly efforts to rise in life, and his success, his consistency as a politician, his tried unionism, and his extraordinary reverence for the Constitution• Party passions must be put aside, the Articles ex" atnined one by one, and Mr. Johnso❑ dealt with 5 if he had been Prezident Washington or President Lincoln. Mr. Evarts concluded on Friday, let May, having previously apologized for so long oc cupying the Court, as he had commenced on the 28th, c ontinned the 29th and 3(lth April, and finished only on that day. CMISELLANEO US NETVS. (Front the Anglo-American Times) The Spring field Republican says We are Oa to recorl that the disgraceful divorce seekers at NeW Haven, Connecticut, are not of New England birth. Bev* 0. B. Judd, LL.D., is a New York Democrat, who derived his legal title from one of that State's county colleges. Ile was seriously accused of disloyalty in New Haven, and his brief ministry there did not benefit the church which employed him. His wife was the widow of a Now York lawyer, and now lives in that city. The details which attract an audience of as many women as men every day ought to be summarily ended for the good of the public. " W. W. Rice, of Worcester, Massachusetts, and George W. Johnson, of Brookfi,:ld, were chosen delegate s to the Chicago Convention, and Major E. P. Halstead, of Worcester, and John S. Mead, of Milford, alternate in at the Eighth District Convention held in Worcester, April 21. "The result of the late Connecticut election via ° officially declared on Monday, April 27, and gives Go vernor English 1,757 majority in a vote of 99,318, a ga l° over last year of 787 in his majority, and of 5,175 in the whole vote. The Senate will stand twelve Republican s to nine Democrats, a Republican gain of one, and th e House 128 Republicans to 110 Democrats, a Republican gain of four." The J\'ew York World thus compares the mili tary expenditure of the United States with that of Great Britain :—" The present strength of the British aril*" ie 136,650 men, and the entire sum asked for their suppor t for the ensuing year, for all military expenses of whatso ever character, for the repairs of fortifications at hom e and abroad, transportation, pensions, and all other ea' penditures, is £15,455,400, or $77,277,000 dollars. A t : operation in simple arithmetic will show that the ce e " of each soldier i, £ll3 per year, or about 565 dol lars. It is not really so much as this, since i ll this estimate of expense is included the appropria tion for pensions, which is nearly one-seventh of the who le amount, and we do not include our own pension list In the estimate we have made in the cost of our own army' But the comparison we are making is sufficiently startling if the cost of the British soldier is stated at the highe st , figure and that of th e A mer i can soldier at the lo west one. The British army estimate is made up as follows v. Pay, food, clothing, and hospital service, £10,216, 000 ' stores and transportation, £1,491,000 ; fortifications, bar' racks, &e., £968,400 ; non-effective services, £2,124, 800; military education, £655,200—t0ta1, £15,455,400. 11 - 114 , for this sum ac army of 136,650 men i s k ept i n th e highest state of efficiency. Now let us look at our own figure' When Secretary M'Culloch submitted his estimates 10r the ensuing financial year, last December, he placed the expenditures at something over $94,000,000. Now t he actual exp enditure is, as we have repeatedly shown, 've i l much greater, greater by fifty per cent. in all probability ; but we take Secretary 14 'Culloch's estimate that tiler. may bo no possible cavil, and not the real expenditule which Mr. Greeley dares not ask for and which the Eu ll4l dare not state to their constituents. These amended esti mates of the Secretary were based upon a reduction of the army to a force of 50,000 men, which is more than we no ° have in the service, and they were made up as follows For the army proper, $37,511,512 ; arsenals, ‘"'' $1,093,`202; Military Academy, $335,012; fortifica tions, $580,000; improvements, $ 6 ,697,500 ; public buildings and grounds, t 51,423,770 ; 847,5 92 : 996 ' And this is ti» soul required fur maintenance of an awry nominally composed of 50,000 men, but which really (lode not number 40,000 effective soldiers. If the comparison were made az, strictly as it might be, it would be found that the cost of a soldier iu the United States is ful l y double or treble what it is in Great Britain. But it is bad enough as we have stated it. Nine hundred and fifteen dollars for a soldier in the United States, of which the soldier himself receives $lBO, and $565 for a soldier in Great Britain, of which the soldier himself gets $147 The Springfield Republican says :—" The Episco pal bishop of New York is troubled with another cent v macious rector. Rev. D. R. Brewer, of the Church of the Reformation in Gates avenue, has shown his sympat hy ; with Mr. Tyng in several ways, since the bishop's admen .. tion. First, by taking a seat in a Methodist conference; second, by announcing his readiness to preach in any g e ; thodist church to which he may b e i nv it e d ; thirdly, by inviting clergymen of different denomina tions to occupy seats within his chancel, and to tat e part in his services. At the communion sorti e© on Good Friday he had within the rails, and assist ing in the services of th e occas i on — w hi c h are represe nted to have been vary impressive and solemn—Dr. Waterbury and Rev. Mr. Gleason, Congregationalists; Dr. Durye e ' Presbyterian ; Rev. Messrs. Buckley and Howe, Meth °. dists, and Rev. Messrs. Thrall and Gallagher, EpiscoP n_ liens. The Italian journals publish the following letter' addressed by Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Marsh, the American Representative at Florence :*" " Washington, April 10, 1868.—1 have received your c le- o spatch of March 22, enclosing a copy of a note address° to you by Gen. Garibaldi. The General says:- 4 I lea r/1 from our friends that Mr. Seward has done me the bon e ' to cite my name among those of the agents of the great Be; public. As I have never had that honour, I beg of you t i intercede with him to get it effaced.' I have ascortaiue'" by an examination of the archives, that the rectificati on which the General calls for is perfectly correct. The 85p sertion to which it relates was founded on an incoa o°l and erroneous extract from a co rres p on d ence exc hange" between the American Government and Garibaldi. Ca re will he taken to giv e correc ti on as muc h pu bli c i ty as the incorrect statement which gave rise to it. You will pleased to convey to the General a copy of this despste7 together with the expression of my regret for the vertence, and the assurance of nay deep respect 53 ' esteem.—W. 11. SEWARD." The Legislature of Massachusetts sustained the report of the Judiciary Committee by 119 to 74, on thcie 29th April, against the petition of Olympia Brown O A others, for the right of suffrage for women. It was notic e ' that the advocates of the measure yearly increase i ° number. According to the Owl, the .transfer of the terri' tory of the lludson's Bay Company to the Governort o3 has been agreed to by the chairman, Lord Kimberley. It measure to effect this will be introduced into fai llama"' in the course of a few days. Mr. Richard Grant White, according to th e Albion, is the writer of the letters which appoar in the &Spectator, signed "A Yankee." Births. CLARKE.—On the 19th inst., at St. Margaret's, Twicken ham, S.W., Mrs. James N. Clarke, of a daughter. Gusts—On the 18th inst., at 1, Ormonde-terrace, N° r c b, gate, Regent's-park, N.W., the wife of Wm. F. Gus Esq., of a son. LEENEAGE— On the 17th inst., at 10, Cadogan-place, the wife of Major Heneage, V.., of a son. TWYFORD—On the 18th inst. o at Trottou House, Wilubia don, the wife of A. S. Twyford, of a daughter. Marriages. • I'o T BUCHANAN—LAWTON —On the 16th inst., at St. C et, Church, John Buchanan, jun., of 30, Fitzroy-St ro h. Fitzroy-sqttare, to Jane Elizabeth Lawton, eldest drug ter of John Lawton, Esq., of Tooting, Surrey. SmAitT—WILBY— On the 16th inst., at St. Mic1: 01 Church, Bishop's Stortford, fleas, Robert Smart, 1 1„ , of Gray's-inu, London. solicitor, to Alison Jane, ° ; ‘ , l , daughter of Thomas Wilby, Esq., of Windhill boo Bishop's Stortford. Deaths. CHALMERS —On the 15th inst., at Aldbar Castle, n ear Brechin, John I. Chalmers, E . sq., of Aldbar. • n Cubwoni—On the 16th inst., at 20, Greville-place , - burn Priory, Mr. Benjamin Cudworth, aged 79. rei , CALROW—On the 16th inst., at Longfield, Sutton, Sur le Calrow, Esq., of 36, St. Mary-at-Hill, aged . , 0 , DEVEREUX —On the 15th inst., Rear-Admiral the D ' ci Walter B. Devereux, aged 57. prode DOVETON— 12 the 16th inst., at 5, Sussex-squar,o park, Lady Doveton, widow of General JoUr W ye. K.C.B. GOODMILD—On the 17th inst., at upper Teddingtona Thomas Goodchild, aged 38. London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM AND/071g, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Viz Sow Moe, 14 %; of Strand, in the Precinct of. the sa 'toy, in the Coo' Micldlow•Tuoscity, M'7lB, Ida This Prize It h Sold the Age Obset ban's L JA GP, A, DAY roinatit to tho 4, Reg w i t o'clock Ito TRi t:3 M r . A Miss e ICED] Pull Rail i Pr; Pro m Ititch Spe daY, ll' Mr Patro moue a ri d 3 be th vor1 ( DA./ 13 11 AC "; 1 (1 )n ' ---:-. r -rb litort by for Solo 11 - Tun Or u i hood raty, equ . , ----- Tao/ an d for ( littri tioni trap 1114 ape, os. star all Ti, ho i for Ch