The Sun. — London, England, 1868-05-11 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. In commenting on the death of Lord Brougham, the Post reminds us of the great work the veteran statesman did in the matter of law reform, as advocate at the bar, as Lord Chancellor of England, and subsequently as private law lord. But Lord Brougham was even more distin guished as a statesman than as an advocate, a judge, and a law reformer. The large share he took in the work of the Reform Bill of 1832, and in the contest which attended its passing into an Act, are too well known to need com ment. Indeed, the unwearied debater and resolute party leader, who in the Commons had no rival but Canning, and who when raised to the Lords found no rival at all, is perhaps the most prominent figure which meets the eye in the historical group to which he belongs. While Eail Grey and Lord John Russell enjoyed all the prestige which rank and birth and party connections could give them, plain Henry Brougham owed his influence solely to his great intellect, his indomitable will, and above all to his indefatigable industry and labour. But the fierce party leader, whose invectives seemed formed on the model of the philippics of Demosthenes, was at the same a great practical philanthropist, and no less earnest and untiring in his labours for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade than for carrying the Reform Bill. And while labouring to emancipate the victims of " involuntary ser vitude " abroad, he was no less zealously working to do away with another kind of slavery at home, namely, that of ignorance, which debases and fetters the mind, as the other does the body ; and his efforts in the cause of cheap and efficient education for the people, and the diffusion of useful knowledge among old and young alike, were un ceasing. The Daily News remarks that the shadow of a great name has vanished. Henry Brougham is no more. A stormy career has had a placid enfling. On Thursday night Lord Brougham passed away in his sleep, at his favourite retreat in the South of France. Politically he bad been dead long before the term of his natural life. It was difficult for observers who saw the feeble and tottering ' figure, with its head of snow, creeping into the House of Lords, and rising there, amid forbearing silence, to mutter A few rambling observations which the most painful efforts could scarcely make articulate, or haunting the provincial Congresses of the Social Science Association, or fluttering restlessly about the rooms of the Law Amendment Society, to believe that in it they looked upon all that was eft of Lord Brougham. Long before his death he had come to live a more real life in the page of history and in the memory of younger contemporaries than in his own j person. " This is he that was Brougham," seemed to be the involuntary and silent confession of his long decadence. There was in it an appeal to the considerate judgment of the age into which his protracted existence had extended itself. The pathetic bequest of another Lord Chancellor of England—a greater lawyer, orator, statesmen, and philosopher than the eminent man who has just died, a politician as wavering, and a judge with hands less clean— " My name and memory I leave to foreign nations, and to my own countrymen after some time be passed over," Lord Brougham did not need to make. Long before his death the time had passed over which was necessary to enable men fairly and dispassionately to judge of 11; life and character. His political career ended more than a generation ago. The passions of partisanship, the bitter ness of disappointment, the generous warmth of friend. ship, no longer trouble and obscure the calmness and clear ness of men's minds. The man who died last week and long before passed into the region of historic impartiality into which his great predece . ssorw contemopraries, and rivals had entered before him. Ve can think and speak of him as we speak of Fox and Pitt and Canning, of Thurlosv, Eldon, and Lyndhurst. The Standard declares that Lord Brougham will be remembered not for the speeches he has made or the books he has written, but because of the inseparable manner in which his name is interwoven in the history of his country for twenty eventful years. That history will record little of him before 1811 . ; and little after 1835, but between those epochs he played a part second to none in prominence and importance. Whilst the abolition of the slave trade, the trial of Queen Caroline, and the Reform Act of 1832 are remembered, Brougham's name will live in the recollec tion of his countrymen, and it will be held, when his whole career is impartially considered, in honour and respect. That nobody here in England should have known of the death of Lord Brougham until two days had passed, shews, in the opinion of the Tdcgrapit, how this grand old north country nobleman had survived himself. Politically and civilly, he was dead long ago : be has been his own monu ment for a score of years ; and even now, when we say to each other, " Lord Brouharn is no more," the words im part no shock such as usually accompanies the announce- merit of great men's deaths ; they seem the formal intima tion of an incident accomplished long ago. Practically, he went away out of the world to die many lustre since, but the fibre of his body, like that of the mind, was so prodigiously tough that be has been living hale and sound some score of years beyond the span of man's life ; like some giant oak of the woodland which, season after season, shoots from its wrinkled bark and decayed branches leaves as fresh and green as when it was a sapling. Decayed ? we do the indomitable deceased wrong ; be shot out fresh timber as well as leaves almost up to the end. The Times draws attention to the debate on fortifica tions which arose on the Navy Estimates. It suggests the question, Is it a fact that fortifications— elaborate for tifications—are useless, or likely to be useless, in modern war? Is it a fact that we can afford pro bably to neglect Portsmouth or Plymouth, and either maintain a great arsenal at Chatham or distribute our resources over various parts of the country ? Is Lord Palmerston's policy, in short, condemned by the fact that guns are bigger than they used to be, and iron more in esteem than stone? It is remarkable that the speakers who were loudest in their disparagement of Portsmouth Lines were still anxious for the scheme of floatirig bat teries. Yet that scheme was carefully weighed against the other in 1860, and only accepted as accessory to land forifications. There does not seem to be great force in the argument which appeared to produce the greatest effect and to command the widest concurrence. Sir John Pakington, Sir John Hay, and Mr. Childers all agreed in represent ing our outstanding contracts as the principal obstacle in the way of the proposed inquiries. If we are to retrace our steps, we must first come to halt by suspending opera tions ; and if we suspend operations, we must be prepared to pay heavy sums to contractors with whom our engage ments would thus be broken. No doubt this might be a dead loss, as well as a somewhat humiliating confession. But if it be really true that the scheme in hand is a mis take, we had better bear the loss already incurred than proceed with an expenditure which would only be equi valent to further losses. The case is exactly like that just placed on a smaller scale and before a smaller constituency by Lord Salisbury. The shareholders of the railway com pany over which he presides have spent half a million on certain works, and are bound by contracts to spend three millions more. They may escape this obligation by con• senting to lose their £500,000 and paying £700,000 forfeit, It is a very unpleasant alternative, but If the question is anyhow one of loss it is clearly better to lose a million and a quarter than three millions and a half. The Times does not venture so to prejudge the question before Par liament, or to assume as proved that the money which we are spending upon Portsmouth Lines might as well be poured into the sea at Spithead. We only say that, if there is really reason for thinking we are on a wrong course, it would be better to stop and pay the penalty than to go on throwing good money after bad. On the other hand, if artificial defences are still of value, it is merely an accidental misfortune that fortifications should cost more than formerly. Details or mistakes of construc tion cannot affect the principle of the scheme ; nor can Portsmouth Lines be proved to be a blunder by any pos sible defects in the Gibraltar Shield. In point of fact, we do not observe, even in these discursive controversies, any essential objection to the general designs of 1860, except that which proceeds from the advocates of floating in pre ference to fixed defences. The rest is matter of detail, perhaps of compromise. The position of a fort is deter mined, in the first place, not by the nature of the soil, but by the immediate conditions of the problem—the com mand and range of the guns. The combinations of iron and granite, again, may be questionable, and yet it may be necessary to build strong walls of some kind. Alto gether, the conclusion of the debate was fair and reasonable. Everybody seemed to think that a case had been made out for hesitation, but Sir John Pakington was evidently justified in objecting to a precipitate repeal of the resolutions adopted deliberately in 1800, and prosecuted at a vast expense ever Nothing in the terms of the motion or the circumstances of the occasion could have prepared the Secretary of War for a decisive conclusion on a c l u es . tion of such vast importance. He pleaded, with great reason, that he should wish to take the opinions of his colleagues, and that the House should only proceed to its decision after fuller notice and longer thought. In this position the matter may be supposed to stand, for, though Mr. O'Beirne, after declining to withdraw his motion, was defeated on a division, it is clear enough that the question will be reconsidered on an early day. AN UNFORTUNATE PETITION. —The ancestry .A dr ert ;se r says a petition was got up at Llanfyllin by the Tory party, at the beginning-of la.t week, against Mr. Glad- , stone's resolutions. It was sent off by train on Tuesday morning, to be presented to the House by Mr. C. Wynn i that evening ; but, unfortunately, in transferring the parcel from one train to another at Buttington station, it fell under the wheel, and was returned to Llanfyllin in a very unpreauktablo THE ATTEMPTED MURDER IN NORTON FOLGATE. On Sunday evening Mrs. Grossmith was pronounced by the surgeons who are in attendance upon her to be some what improved, but to be still in great danger. She has so far recovered consciousness that she has been able to give her husband an account of the manner in which she was attacked by Arthur Mackay. From circumstances which are within the knowledge of Mr. Grossmith and of his young sons there is now no doubt whatever that the attack was premeditated, and that for some days previous to Friday last Mackay had conceived a violent antipathy for his mistress and her children. Mr. Grossmith's state ment is as follows: Mackay was the son of an old friend, and owing to that circumstance he was taken into the service of the Gros smiths, although he had been for three years in the refor in atory at Felth am for larceny. He professed himself highly satisfied with his place, and tried to ingratiate himself with his employers, and he was so far successful that he was able to borrow money from time to time of Mrs. Gros smith. Last week he asked his master to give him beer with his luncheon instead of for his dinner. Mr. Grossmith said, " You can have it for both luncheon and dinner if you like." Mackay hypocritically said. " No, thank you ; I will only take beer once a day." Thrown off his guard by this proof of temperate habits, Grossmith left the keys of the beer cellar in the door. On Thursday morning, one of the little boys got up at five o'clock to learn his lessons, oad detected Mackay in the act of helping himself to beer sit of the barrel. He asked the boy not to tell, and the ►oy replied, "Not if it is the first time." Mackay protested ;hat it was the first time, and the boy promised to hold ois tongue. The same evening Mackay told the Soy that he had dreamt twice that he had killed him, and after some conversation he appears to have got at the fact that Mrs. Grossmith had been told of the affair of the beer barrel. On Friday morning, at half-past six o'clock, Mackay was seen by Walter Grossmith striking the chopper into a large piece of meat in an extraordinary way, and he asked him what he was doing it for. Mackay said, "I am practising to see bow to serve those that don't do as I like." This appears to have made an undefined im pression of danger on the boy's mind, which was in creased when Mackay soon afterwards lost his temper with him and his brother for not ,cleaning some forks to save him trouble. He was so violent that Mr. Grossmith called him up and reprimanded him for his ill temper. At half-past nine o'clock, after Mr. Grossmith left to go to market, Walter, who should have gone to school, lin gered at the front door, distrustful of the intentions of Mackay. The latter, who was cleaning the shop window, kept looking in at Mrs. Grossmith, who was in the kitchen behind the shop. Seeing that the little boy would not go away, he called out to Mrs. Grossmith, " See here, ma'am, here is Walter not gone to school yet." Mrs. Grossmith sent Walter to school, and she thus deprived herself of her Daly protection. She was engaged making a pudding, and she asked Mackay for a cloth. Mackay gave her one, which he had used for wrapping round grease ; she got t-Igry, and told him he should wash it, and it would ‘ppear she scolded him, He came into the kitchen and ,hut the door. She did not know what he intended to do, sut was almost instantly struck down by a terrific blow in the head from the rolling-pin, and was sent under the sink. She got up and laid bold of his waistcoat, which was torn in two, but he knocked her down again and again, striking her with something which she could not see. A large iron saucepan was found afterwards with a piece broken out of the side of it, and it is believed that it was with a blow from that that he fractured her skull • and knocked part of the hone away. She became nearly insensible. She could feel, she said, that "he gave it to her, and Clocked her down a hundred times," and from injuries to her body it is believed that he jumped upon her. A Mrs. Sandford, whose attention had been attracted by the noise, entered the shop Mackay looked out through the glass panels of the kathen door, and she observed that his face was covered with blood. She went forward, and Mackay opened the door to go out to meet her. She then saw Mrs. Grossmith on the floor in a pool of blood, Ind beaten out of all shape. She said to Mackay, " You have done this." He, with great coolness, said, "No, I did not. The master is just gone out round the corner. I will go for him," and he talked out. Thus he :fleeted his escape. Mrs. Sandford fainted, and was for some hours in the hands of the doctor before she could malt any statement to the police. Mrs. Grossmith states that she heard Mrs. Sandford come in, and that if she had not arrived another blow would have been fatal at once. The police believe they have got a clue to Mackay's whereabouts. A hawker states that he met him in the neighbourhood of Woolwich, and spoke to him there. Several officers were at once despatched to the locality in question, and if be be really there his arrest is certain. In any case, he cannot long evade justice, for it is believed that he has no funds, and he has not gone near his rela tives. since, LAW AND FOLICE. CURIOUS QUESTION OF LAW.—In the Court of Queen's Bench the case of Carpenter v. Stanley was heard. The case raised the curious question as to whether a labourer earning 14s. a week could be convicted as an " idle and disorderly person." The appellant had refused to maintain his wife, in consequence of which she had been obliged to go to the union of Tunbridge-wells. It was proved that the respondent,who was the relieving-officer, had gone with the appellant's wife and required him to maintain her, but he refused to do so. It was also proved that the appellant was earning 14s. a week. Upon this evidence the justices convicted the appellant. It was contended in support of the conviction that within the Act the word " idle " did not mean " idleness " in the general acceptation of the term ; but that the refusal to maintain was the gist of the offence. For the appellant the contrary was urged. The court affirmed the conviction. ELECTION LAW.—In the same court the cause of Somer. hill v. Coley came before their lordships. This was a special case, stated by way of appeal from a decision of magistrates declining to convict the defendant for miscon ducting an election under the Public Health Act, by in cluding voters not entitled to vote, and thus causing he complainant the loss of his election. The magistrates leclined to convict, as the act was bond fide, and not vilfully erroneous. The defendant was chairman of the Board of Health of a district in Staffordshire, and he had admitted votes of marksmen, whose marks bad been attested by witnesses, but whose names had not been written as the Act required. He had taken legal advice upon the point, and acted in accordance with it, that advice apparently being based upon the omission in the voting papers to be delivered under the Act of any direc tion requiring the names of marksmen to be written by the witnesses. The court from the first were clear that the penal provision in the Act only applied to neglect or dis regard of clear and undoubted directions, not mere mis takes upon doubtful points. It could not be supposed, they said, that the Legislature meant to impose heavy pecuniary penalties (the penalty here was £5O) for mere mistakes upon doubtful points, They therefore affirmed the decision of the magistrates. DAMAGES FOR FALSE I'MPRISONMENT.—At the Second Court of Common Pleas a case in which damages were claimed for false imprisonment came on for hearing. A llr. Collings gave the plaintiff, Mr. Beresford, in custody for stealing a horse. It seemed that the defendant gave him into custody at Hai, in Essex. He was remanded, and eventually committed for trial at Chelmsford ; the grand jury found a true bill, but no evidence was offered and the plaintiff was discharged. There had been some negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale of the horse, and it had. been placed at pasture on a marsh near Ham, and had been taken away by the plaintiff, whose it was. The question was, in fact, one of damages only, and the jury found for the plaintiff ; damages, £-25. ACTION FOR BREACH OF PROMISE. — In the same court an action was brought by a cook, named Benniells, to recover damages for a breach of promise to marry against a butcher named Morris. The defendant had also borrowed £55 from his quondam lover. The debt was proved by the plaintiff, and the breach of promise by passages from letters written by the defendant which left no doubt as to his liability. The documentary evidence was corroborated by the fact that the defendant had put up the banns and made arrangements for his marriage. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the loan, and £lO damages for the breach of promise. Imme. diate judgment, and execution in four days. Mrs. Rickaby, the "well-dressed, handsome lady " (as she is described in the police reports) charged with having married four husbands, was brought up again on Saturday, at the Southwark court. Some additional evidence was taken, and Mr. Ribton, who appeared for the accused, applied for a further remand to see the result of an action she had commenced against Dr. Blackmore, the alleged fourth husband, for alimony. On the other side it was stated that the prosectitor had petitioned for a dissolu• tion of his marriage with the prisoner. The magistrate committed her for trial, accepting bail for her appearance. THE DOVER AlvaDEß.—On Friday, at the meeting of the magistrates in Dover, it was determined to invite the authorities and inhabitants to join them in a sub scription to be presented to Mrs. Walshe, the widow of the late station-master at the Dover Priory Station, whose recent melancholy death has excited so much sym pathy, as a testimonial of the high appreciation of the unvarying kindness, efficiency, and courtesy evinced by him in the performance of his duties. Immediate arrange ments will be made for carrying this determination into e*Stl7.l - DQVIr OrPicki THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, MAY 11, 1868. RELIGION IN FRANCE UNDER LOWS go about his business. Everybody knows how PHILIPPE. the King of the barricades left. He was put into a cab on the Place Louis XVI., and driven It was the cholera, after the Revolution of 1830, which first opened the eyes of the people, in some places, in that circle of forty miles round Paris, called by the world the most enlightened portion of France, where field work is going on, and where nobody goes to church on Sunday. Vice and irreligion were so much in honour, that people could not even bear the sight of a Sister of Charity, on account of her large, white, starched cap, her very modest dress, her beads, and crucifix. Such things were a constant reproach to their conscience, so that in some towns and villages the bonne soeur was sent away. But on the breaking out of the cholera, nobody was found to take care of the sick or to bury the dead. The Sisters of Charity accordingly were recalled. To this dread scourge, therefore, the first re turn to better feelings in regard to religion in France can be traced. The Sister of Charity was received back with the greatest enthu siasm by the entire population. The cholera had also the effect of rendering the parish priest more popular ; the people called upon him and requested him to head them in their processions and pilgrimages. An ancient pil grimage, which had been forgotten since the great Revolution of 1792, exists within that circle of forty miles round Paris, of which I have so often spoken : it is situated in the rural village of St. Julienne, among some of the prettiest hills of the department, and the church is dedicated to the saint from whom the village derives its name. In less than four months, more than 300 villages or towns went in procession to St. Julienne to obtain the intercession of that saint for deliverance from the calamity which was desolating the country. The rage of the so-called liberal press boiled over when they heard of so wonderful a change in the people; their pages were full of recriminations against priestcraft. In the town of Arpajon, about eight leagues from Paris, on the road to Orleans, where scarcely an individual goes to church on Sunday, the population insulted the pilgrims on their way, though they carried the banners and the cross of their village churches. They accused them of being priest-ridden fanatics, making use of the arguments furnished them in the infidel journals. However, even that so-called en lightened town, when it had buried about thirty of the inhabitants, also recalled the Sisters of Charity; and when they saw eighty new graves in their cemetery froth the effects of cholera, the entire population, men, women, and chil dren, went themselves on a pilgrimage to St. Julienne. It was noticed at the time that only two more deaths occurred after that pil grimage. The rage of the infidel newspapers was intense ; they cried out bitterly against the effects of priestcraft, but that did not prev entcame m fromanymo t r h e e su c c it h y ofexameyloenss. to Pilgrimsren renew even their ex-votos at St. Julienne, in special dili gences and stage coaches; more than 600 ex'- votos, which had been neglected during the last century were renewed, and may now be seen at St. Julienne. It was in this way religion began to be more respected, nday s. However, and the churches irreligionhesb etter attended on sucontinued to triumph in all the Government measures ; the deadly corruption had reached its climax in the year 1846, when that famous Ency clical of Pius IX., dated the 9th of November, was issued from Rome. This Encyclical letter, ordering, under penalty of sin, all subjects to recognise existing Governments, however base e r r e v , er s el y i m n a te y rp h r a e v te e d b b e y en su t c h h eir m o e ri n g a i s n' La w co as rda p i Mon talembert, and Falloux, as confirming the new school of political Liberalism they had inau gurated, and which at the time was accepted by the great majority of ecclesiastics in France. It was the alliance of the Revolution with re ligion. Even men like Garibaldi became popu lar at Rome at the time. Those who would not adopt the new system were looked upon as retrogrades, as incapable of seeing how much religion would gain if it could place itself at the head of the so-called Liberal movement As if heaven could be allied with hell. The opponents of the new school scouted any approach to an alliance with Liberalism. They foretold what would be the result of this new system, therefore told that the eyes of those ill-advised men would be opened by the cruelest events—possibly, even, by the martyrdom of the Holy Father in the Eternal City. The Encyclical, however, which had been grievously misinterpreted, con tained this important provision its precept— that obedience and subjection is due to Princes and Governments, " except in what is contrary to the laws of God and the Church." The Archbishop of Paris, the noble prelate who afterwards, in the holy cause of peace and re conciliation, laid down his life in the barri cades, took action on this proviso and made representations to the King of the barricades. In his speech, on New Year's Day, at the Tuileries, he reproached Louis Philippe with the awful crimes, which at the time were re ported in every law court ; showed how urgent it was, for the sake of faith and morality, to reform the university and put an end to the un-Christian character of the national educa tion. The King's answer was not published in the Moniteur, the official gazette of France ; on the contrary, the official journals found fault with the Archbishop, taxing him with a violation of his oa th o f allegiance. The King, who had perjured himself so as not even to re spect the oath of the cordon bleu, found writers ready to supp or t hi m i n hi s i n f amy. B u t such is the nature of infidelity. It makes men unjust, capable of seeing the mote in their neighbour's eye and not the beam in their own. Such men have two weights and two measures. The remonstrances made by the Archbishop of Paris, and not accepted by the King, acted as an electric shock all over France. The people saw that Government was powerless against crime, and e d il. not A even the wish to reform h ole last nation,cirep of and popularity ri y t e y ar l e f l t B4 t 0 7 (o t i h lr,a e eirn c e r t d y h i e n t g ili\e, feeling of disgust crept Louis Philippe. During that year you might have travelled all over France without meet ing a person who dared support the Govern ment ; even the army and place-men joined the universal cry. In every coffee-room, in every place of public resort, in railway car riages, everywhere you could hear but this one phrase—" La poire est mure it faut ellequ' tombe." To understand the application of the woad poire, it is necessary to explain that in a famous lawsuit fora pear, p w o h li i t e i h caloffence represe the nted accused designed the p ortraait of Louis Philippe. The joke was taken up by every gamin or idle street boy in Paris, and chalked upon every wall. From Paris, the joke was carried to all the provinces. It was about this time the Spanish marriage was contracted, which out witted Lord Palmerston; the English press was loud in their condemnation of treachery, and that event weakened much the popu larity of Louis Philippe in England ; but in the higher circles of society the King was still considered safe on his throne. In England it is too often desires rather than facts that guide the pen of public writers. In all questions of the higher order, such as morality and religion, they are obliged to flatter the passions and pre judices of their readers. Reading is made in that way easy and comfortable. Something of the same kind of delusion befel Louis Philippe in 1848. He was so blind that he could not see that vice and crime had been carried to such a pitch that they had opened the eyes of the people. The King could not see that the French nation felt the justice of the Pope's Encyclical, and the justice of the Archbishop's remonstrances, that the clergy of France had become popular by their opposition, that it was necessary to free the country from those chains which his reign had rivetted. The consequence was that when the Revolution of February broke out, it was found to be a revolution of sheer disgust. France did not wish to hurt the King. All it wanted was that he should by a common cabman through the Champs Elysees out of Paris. There was something honest in this revolution. The Government fell into the hands of the people. It was a re volution brought about by excessive crime. Religion, therefore, could only gain by it. Public order was respected because every class of society took up arms to protect itself. The country was free from every tyrant, because nobody in France had the popularity necessary to make himself a master. The people there fore named a republic, with universal suffrage. The next article will comprise the consequences of that measure up to the year of the coup d'eteit in 1852.—Correspondent of the Westminster Gazette. PROGRESS OF 1111PEACEMENT. April 17.—Senator Sumner proposed that the time of sitting should be from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily to facilitate business ; this would give between two and three additional hours. It was finally resolved that the Court should assemble each day at 11 a.m., leaving the closing hour unnamed. William W. Armstrong, editor of the Cleveland Pluindealer, testified to the President's speech in that city. The President was only induced to speak at all after much solicitation, and the objectionable part arose from the frequent in terruption and goading of the mob. But he ad mitted, on cross-examination, that his recollection of the matter was somewhat imperfect. The St. Louis collector of revenue, Barton Able, spoke with regard to the speech at that city, declaring that the President had repeatedly refused to make any ad dress, and only gave way on strong pressure, when he stepped on the balcony of the Southern Hotel. George Knapp, editor of the Missouri Republican, corroborated this, adding that he had corrected the address from the balcony before printing it in the Republican. One of its reporters, Henry S. Riker, also testified to the report as printed. In several instances he had moderated its language in order to conform it to what the President actually said as far as he could recall it. Previous to the examina tion of Assistant-Secretary Frederick W. Seward, some documentary evidence relating to forms of commission to army officers, and removals from the interior department, was given in, and the method of masking ad interim appointments was testified to by the witness. Secretaries Seward, Welles, M'Cul loch, Browning, and Postmaster-General Randall, were in court for examination, the whole Cabinet being present with the exception of Stanton. The first examined was Welles, Secretary of the Navy. In reply to the reported movements of the trbops at Washington on the 22d of February, he acknow ledged having heard from his son, who was present, and reported to the President, that the officers of Emory's command had been summoned to head quarters from an evening party on 21st February. Mr. Butler objected to a question as to what the President then said to him, but the objection was over-ruled. The Attorney-General was at the time with the President, and during the interview the nomination of Thomas Ewing, as Secretary of War, was made out, and sent to the Senate. The Presi dent, on being informed of the movement by wit ness, said he did not know what Emory was about, and that he would send for him to inqu ire. This was on the 22d February, and Secretary Welles was asked what transpired at the Cabinet meeting on the preceding day. Witness answered, the Cabinet were all present except Stanton, and just as they were separating the President made a communication ; —at this point Mr. Butler objected. After a lengthened argument, the Chief Justice declared the testimony admissible, and the Senate sus tained his decision by 26 to 23, when the wit ness continued,—" The President remarked that before the Cabinet separated it was proper for him to say that he had removed Mr. Stan ton, and appointed the Adjutant -General, Lorenzo Thomas, Secretary of War ad interim. He inquired whether General Thomas was in possession ; the President said he was, but that Mr. Stanton re quired some little time to remove his writings and his papers. I said, or perhaps I asked, " Does Mr. Stanton, then, acquiesce in it?" He said, " He did, as he understood it." The witness then went on to say that this communication was made in accord ance with the customary Cabinet routine, the Pre sident generally making his communications after the Cabinet officers had disposed of their depart ment matters. He was afterwards asked whether he was not aware, at the time of its passage of the terms of the Tenure-of-Office Act, and replied that he was, and was present at a Cabinet meeting on Feb. 26, 1867, when it was under consideration. Mr. Stanton was present, and the President said that the bill had been passed by Congress, and presented to him, and he desired the advice of the Cabinet about it. General Butler objected to any testimony of what transpired at that Cabinet meeting, and the defence offered to prove that the'President, having asked the advice of the Cabinet whether he should approve the bill, " thereupon the members of the Cabinet then present gave their advice to the Pre sident that the bill was unconstitutional, and should be returned to Congress with his objections, and that the duty of preparing a message setting forth the objections to the constitutionality of the bill was devolved upon Mr. Seward and Mr. Stanton." On an objection from Mr. Butler, who held that the President had no right to advance the opinions of the Cabinet and his own, to justify his refusing to exercise a law on the statute book, the question was reopened as to the admissibility of the testi mony, and the Senate adjourned before the argu ment was concluded. Mr. Butler, on this day, was censured for allowing the publication, in that morning's Globe, of certain tabular statements as part of his speech, which not only had not entered into it, but had not even been alluded to or offered in evidence, and the Senate ordered these state ments to be struck from the official report of the proceedings. April 18.—The Chamber was densely crowded on this day. Mr. Wilson delivered along and able speech against the admissibility of the testimony. He argued that the violation of a law is itself suffi cient proof of criminal intent. He was replied to by Mr. Curtis, and the Chief Justice held the tes timony to be admissible, while the Senate, by 29 to 20, took the opposite view—Sumner and Norton declining to vote. Secretary Welles was, however, recalled, and asked whether at the Cabinet delibe rations on the Tenure-of-Office Bill, from the time it was presented to the President until the time the veto message was sent in, the question as to whether Mr. Stanton came under its provisions was discussed. Butler, who had been persuaded to be silent during the argument for the admission of the Cabinet officer's testimony, here objected ; and though the Chief J us ti ce decided that the testimony ought to he ad m itt e d, a gain the Senate reversed his decision by 26 t o 22 --Sumner and Norton also on this occasio n d ec li n i n g to vote. The witness was then asked if, at any of the Cabinet meetings previous to the removal of Mr. Stan ton, the effect on the public services of the Tenure-of-office Act came up for discussion. He answered it did, and for the third time followed a queStion to which Mr. Butler objected, as one that had twice been ruled out. He said that the Senate had determined not to receive these Cabinet consultations in evidence, but the counsel en deavoured to evade the decision by getting in the evidence by detail, wearying out the patience of the Senate. Four times that body had expressed its opinion in favour of the Constitutionality of the law, twice on the bill, and twice on the Stanton case. Mr. Evarts replied that the length and frequency of the learned Manager's remarks indi cated that he thought the Senate capable only of receiving impressions on one side. Before the Chief Justice submitted the question, Senator Henderson desired to know whether evidence could not be offered in mitigation of punishment if the Presi dent was convicted. Mr. Butler answered that it could not until the verdict of guilty had been pro nounced, and although testimony as to good cha racter could then be put in he objected to it as in cou,petent evidence at any time. In the vote that was taken Senator Coukling remained silent, as well as Senator Sumner and Morton, and the testi. mony was refused by 30 to 19. The President's counsel, however, did not abandon the struggle to get in the evidence of the Cabinet till they had been baffled in another attempt, the question next coining up in this form, " whether there was any discussion as to the vacation of any office, or the obtaining of possession of the same by force." On the failure of this attempt the counsel yielded the point, and Edgar T. Wells succeeding on the stand, corroborated what his father had said about the officers suddenly called to the General's head quarters from an evening party on -the 21st Febru ary. Postmaster-General It andall gave evidence that Foster Blodgett, the postmaster at Augusta, Georgia, had been suspended by him, contrary to law, on complaint of misconduct, without the know ledge of the President, being indicted for perjury and other crimes. An attempt was made in the following form by Senator Sherman to extract the evidence as to the Cabinet deliberations :—" Whe ther the question as to the applicability of the Tenure-of-Office Law to members of the Cabinet appointed by Mr. Lincoln ever came before the Cabinet for discussion, and if so, what were the opinions expressed ?" but it was ruled out by 26 to 20. A sharp passage took place between Mr. Butler and Mr. Randall, and the General was rebuked by the Chief Justice. Mr. Evarts announced that the continued illness of Mr. Stanbery prevented coun sel stating positively whether the evidence for the defence was all in, but they believed it was, and the trial was adjourned till Monday. April 20.—ThePresident's counsel commenced by announcing their case as closed, and the Managers were called upon for rebutting testimony. Mr. Bingham stated that one or two witnesses had been subpoenaed early in the trial, but had not been found, but be hoped to produce them in 48 hours. Senator Reverdy Johnson wished to know whether the Managers desired to offer testimony after the argu ment was begun. Mr. Bingham, although the privilege was customary, said he was not aware that the Managers wished to avail themselves of it. Senator Yates repeated Mr. Johnson's question, and Mr. Bingham still evaded a direct answer. After extracts from the Senate journal and other documents had been presented by Mr. Butler to show the practice of appointing officers, the Post master General was placed on the stand. He cer tified the correctness of a copy of the indictment against Foster Blodgett, on which he had suspended him as postmaster at Augusta. To this Mr. Butler offered Blodgett's answer, but the defence objected, Blodgett not being on trial, and he did not require rebutting testimony. Mr. Butler, while stating what the Managers proposed to prove, was interrupted by the Chief Justice to have it put in writing, when Butler expressed his astonishment at the interruption, observing that the President's counsel had never been interfered with in that way, but the Chief Justice peremptorily said the offer must be put in writing. This was done, and the testimony without a division declared to be inadmissible. It was on this occasion that Mr. Butler observed, " It is probable that Mr. Blodgett will be sent here to take his seat in this House beside the noblest of you ; he is a man qua lified to fill any position on this floor," a remark that appears to us not particularly well calculated for the attainment of the object Mr. Butler bad in view. The President's order appointing General Sherman to the command of the department of the Atlantic was offered, and after an argument with drawn, but the nomination of Sherman and Thomas to be Generals by brevet was refused by a vote of 35 to 14, 24 Republicans joining the majority. As this class of testimony could not be admitted, the Managers announced the case to be closed, and the President's counsel made a similar statement. Several attempts to get permission for the other Managers and counsel to speak, and to print and file their speeches were defeated, and the trial was adjourned to Wednesday. April 22.—Chief Justice Chase announced that Mr. Stanbery, on account of ill health, had with drawn from all further proceedings. For two hours the Senate discussed whether the Managers and counsel not authorized to speak should be allowed to present and file their arguments. Finally the motion offered by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, was adopted, that as many Managers and counsel as desire, be permitted to file written arguments, or address the Senate orally, providing that the con cluding oral argument be made by only one Manager as provided in the first rule. The division on the resolution was 21 to 22. Mr. Boutwell com menced his argument for the Managers and prose cution a little before one o'clock, the Chamber being densely filled with a brilliant audience. He spoke of the prospect of a speedy end of the important trial and of its arduous duties; of the magnitude of the interests and responsibilities involved, the direct and conclusive proof by which the House hail sus tained its charges. He discussed the claim of the President to the power to remove at all times any executive officer, a claim which .has never before been asserted, never sanctioned, and which no law justifies. If the claim is acknowledged, it strips the Senate of all practical power in making appoint ments, and confers on the President power to re move every one refusing to be his instrument. The effect of the unlimited exercise of such power was considered and depicted at length, and the speaker passed to the discussion of the constitu tional powers of the President and the Senate. The legislative was the controlling branch of the Government, the only one whose power was directly derived from the Constitution and the people, the Executive and judicial being dependent upon it. The President's assumption of authority not granted by the Constitution and laws, is a violation of his oath of office. His crime is that he violated a law, and the defence cannot be set up that the law is un constitutional, nor is such inquiry within the pro vince of the Senate. The Act is binding upon all officers and departments, and if the President can refuse to execute it because he thinks it unconsti tutional, then he and his successors may refuse to execute any law not sanctioned by the Supreme Court. Purity of motives cannot be pleaded by the President as an excuse, for he had no right whatever to commit a crime, and his plea that he wanted to get the law into the Courts was of no value, for he had never taken any of the steps necessary to that result. The act of the President was usurpation, and no criminal was ever arraigned who had a more• unsatisfactory excuse for he crimes. He had no right to do what he says he in tended to do; and the evidence shows that there was no attempt to do what he assigned as his purpose. The legal arguments which the defence had pro duced for the support of the President's action were answered at length by Mr. Boutwell, who summed up the whole in the statement that " it is apparent that the President's conduct finds no sup port either in the Constitution, in the Act of 1789, or in the legislation of 1795." The constitutiona lity of the Tenure-of-Office Act was properly con sidered and defended, and its application in the case of Mr. Stanton earnestly insisted on, Mr. Boutwell contending that the office only could be vacated by resignation, or by confirmation by the Senate of a nomination by the President. The arguments of the counsel for the President, relative to the intent, were combated at length, the Manager maintain ing that, in the wilful violation of the law, the Pre sident disclosed a criminal intent, which cannot be qualified by any rebutting testimony. He denied that the President had a right to violate the law to obtain a judicial determination upon its constitu tionality, as is claimed by his counsel ; and the theory that such a course is right, is abhorrent to every just principle of government, and dangerous to the existence of the institutions of the United States. Mr. Boutwell took up the charges one by one, and showed, with great force, how they were estaldished by the evidence, how the action of the President infringed the statutes, and set at naught the customs of the country, and showed the guilt of his design ; while at much length lie answered the arguments of the President's counsel and exposed the weak points of the defence. Ile concluded with these words :—" The corruptions of the public service have enriched multitudes of his adherents. These classes of men, possessing wealth and influence in many cases, have exerted their power to close up every avenue of information. Hence the efforts of the House of Representatives and•of the Managers to procure testimony, which they were satisfied was in existence, have been de feated by the devices and machinations of those who in the North and South are allied to the Pre sident. The telegraphic correspondence between Mr. Johnson and Lewis E. Parsons shows that he used his personal and official influence to defeat the ratification of the Constitutional amendment and the Congressional plan of Reconstruction. Pur suing the subject further, it is easy to comprehend and discover his entire scheme of criminal ambition to obtain command of the War Department and the army, and by their combined power to control the elections in the ten States not yet restored to the Union. By his policy, if in control of the War Department, it would be easy in the ten States to exclude from the polls every coloured in in and give the franchise to every white rebel He could se cure the election of delegates from the ten States to the Democratic N ntienal C eivention favour able to his nomination, foul having delegates asured from other sections of the country would have secured his nomination. This he confi dently anticipated; with the War Department in his hands, and the Tenure-of-Office Act broken down, he would be able to remove Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, or any other officer, high or low, who stood in his way. With tens of thousands of office-holders scattered all over the country, he would be able to control the nominations of the Democratic party in every State of the Union. If, with the electoral votes of the ten States, he ob tained enough from the States now represented in Congress to make a majority of the electoral votes, he would defy the House and Senate should they attempt to reject the votes of the ten States, whe ther they had been previously restored to the Union or not. In a contest with the two Houses, he and his friends and supporters, including the War De partment, the Treasury Department, and the army and the navy, would insist that he had been duly elected President, and he weuld have been inaugu rated on the 4th of March next as President for another four years. The President is hostile to Mr. Stanton, but he has not incurred all this hazard for the mere purpose of gratifying his personal feelings towards Mr. Stanton, but under the influence of ambition, unlimited arid unscrupulous, which dares anything and everything necessary for its gratifica tion. The House of Representatives has brought this great criminal to your bar upon a conviction that the country was in peril, they believing that the inter rests of the country are no longer safe in his a h p a p n e d al s. Representing the people of the country, they to this tribunal to maintain the constitutional powers of the Senate. Never before in the history of any free government has there been so base, so unjustifiable au attempt upon the part of any Execu tive, whether Emperor, King, or President, to de stroy the just authority of another department of the Government. You cannot fail to discharge your duty. Nothing, literally nothing, can be said in defence of this criminal. Andrew Johnson is guilty, upon the proof in part, and upon his own admissions of having intentionally violated a public law, of usurping and exercising powers not exer cised or even asserted by any of his predecessors in office. Judge Pickering, of the District Court of New Hampshire, was impeached and removed from office for the crime of having appeared upon the bench in a state of intoxication. I need not draw any parallel between Judge Pickering and this re-• spondent. Andrew Johnson has disregarded and violated the laws and constitution of his own coun try. The States of the Union are without law, without security, without safety, because of his evil purposes and machinations. Forty millions of people have been rendered anxious and uncertain as to the preservation of public peace and the perpetuation of the institutions of freedom in this country. Catus Venes is the great political criminal of history; for two years he was the scourge of Sicily. It has a popu lation of about two million souls. The criminal at your bar - has been the scourge of a country con taining a population six times as great. This re spondent has not canvassed States or enriched him self by the plunder of their homes, but he had ad hered to a policy which deprived the people of the blessings of peace, of the protection of law, of the just reward of honest industry. A vast and im portant portion of the Republic is prostrate and helpless under the evils which his admieistration ' has brought upon it. Venues had his friends, but this respondent will look in vain even is the South for any testimonials to his virtues or to his public conduct. Will any one say that the heaviest pun ishment which you can give is any adequate pun ishment for these crimes ? But it is yours to re lieve, not to punish. The people of England have successfully resisted Executive encroachLeat upon their rights ; let not their example be lost upon us. We suppressed the rebellion in arms, and we are now to expel it from the Executive Councils. At your bar the House of Representatives demands justice ; justice for the people ; justice to the ac cused. Justice is of God, and it cannot perish. By and through justice comes obedience to law by all magistrates amid people. By and through justice comes the liberty of the law, which is freedom with ous license. Senators, as far as I am concerned, the case is now in your hands, and it is soon to be closed by my associate. The House of Representatives have presented this criminal at the bar, with equal confidence in his guilt and in your disposition to administer exact justice between him and the people of the United States. His conviction is the triumph of law, of order, of justice. I do not contemplate his acquittal—it is impossible. Therefore I do not look beyond. But, Senators, the people of America will never permit an usurping Executive to break down the securities for liberty provided by the Con stitution. The cause of the country is it, your bands. Your verdict of guilty is peace to our beloved land." Mr. Boutwell's argument lasted over the remainder of Wednesday, and although he had spoken for three hours the Senate adjourned, and his speech was resumed on Thursday. April 23.—At 11 o'clock Mr. Boutwell recom menced and continued to occupy the court till 1.40 p.m., when it reassembled after a recess of ten minutes. The galleries were on this, as well as the preceding day, crowded to hear him. Among those present were the Chief Justice of Canada, General Howard, Judge Advocate Holt, Samuel Bowles of Springfield, and Theodore Tilton. Mr. Boutwell read from printed slips. The legal merits of the speech are much discussed, but it was delivered effectively, more especially his denunciation of Mr. Johnson's Cabinet, and made a deep impression. Judge Nelson, of Tennessee, then opened the case for the defence in an extempore address. He is said to be behind the times, and that the speech rather harmed than helped the cause. His manner was passionate, but his matter commonplace, while here and there passages 'were strong and brilliant. It was reported to be against the wish of Everts and Curtis that he spoke, but at the express desire of the President. Mr. Curtis was absent during the delivery. Judge Nelson began as all the other speakers by alluding to the magnitude of the case and his inability to treat it. lie would consider many points which required attention though not belonging to the case, as they had been introduced by the Managers. He then referred to the charges of evil nature, wickedness and detestable character, which had been brought against the President, and which so far had re mained unnoticed by his counsel. The President was accused of being everything, from a political criminal to a common scold. These accusations, stigmas, and aspersions he intended to examine. He sketched the President's early life and carter, and passed a high encomium on his patriotism and public services, referring also to the fact that his neighbours and those who, like himself, knew him best, sustained him and believed him innocent. Mr. Nelson felt he was not addressing merely Senators or poliuicians, but judges expected to rise above prejudice or party considerations and do impartial justice. Referring to the immense outside pres sure which, it was impossible to conceal, unwor thy persons and journals sought to bring to bear upon them, he was confident they would repel it 'with indignation. If he could believe the result of the trial was a foregone conclusion, humble individual that he was, he would scorn to ad dress them. lie asked them as far as possible to put themselves in the President's place, to judge of his feelings, and motives, and intentions—a privilege accorded to the meanest criminal. Citing the resolution declaratory of the purposes of the war, which was introduced by Senator Johnson just after the battle of Bull Run, and was passed by Congress and still remains unrepealed, he claimed that the President had acted upon it and still main tained its principles. He argued that President Johnson, after the surrender of General Lee, ea' deavoured faithfully to carry out the policy of his predecessor, which was based on that resolution. Although Senators may conscientiously believe he was wrong in his action regarding the formation of new State Governments, they must admit that there is no express provision in the Constitution for re construction, and that the President had a right to his own opinion, more especially as peace had n ot been fully restored, and the n'tcessity for prompt action was pressing. Honesty and integrity of rnn tive must in charity be presumed in such a case. Referring to the recognition by Congress of a Stat e Government in Virginia, formed without the pas' sage of any Reconstruction Act, he claimed that Congress had also justified the President's policy, and had also, in the Act of March 1, 1857, d 3 t e ' l the cessation of the war from August, 186 6 , the time fixed in the President's proclamatio n, and thus bad recognize 1 its validity. The rebel States had never been out of the Union then, considering whether the Senate is a Court , he denied that authority or precedent was to be found for its guidance in Parliament, except in the same way that history was to he consulted. This is the tribunal of the American Constitution. Il e then quoted from debates on the formation of t he Constitution in support of his view that the Chie f Justice was called upon to preside as a judge, 36d was expected to state the law, and also to decide in the first instance upon all law questions which might arise. He further contended that the use of th e word " trial" in the constitutional provision for im peachment shows the judicial character of the Senate at that time. He proceeded to characteriz e the propositions advanced by the Managers that the Senate was bound by no common or statute law, but was a law unto itself, and that its common fame was sufficient evidence and ground for its action, as a startling declaration, fraught with danger to -the country. He held that they must consider their case very lame, if forced to receive evidenc e on common fame, which the old adage says i° common liar. In the lowest courts, and by cou rts alone, are justice and equality maintained; no such claims would be advanced, and their veil oaths showed that they were bound by the laws' He denounced as morally improper the considers tions put forward by the Managers that the people of the country demanded the conviction of the Pre sident, and that the public pulse beat fitfully wh ile they delayed it. He discussed the meaning o f the terms treason, bribery, and other crimes and mis demeanours, and held that as at the date of t he formation-of the Constitution treason was punish ablec with death, while b r ib ery was no t, the wet crimes" must be construed with the f orm er, and th e word " misdemeanour" with the latter; hence that nn offence is impeachable that is not a misdetneano ur of the class to which bribery then belonged. point, b e i ng f our o ' c l oc k , on the motion of fi r. Yates, of Illi no i s , t h e C ourt adjourned. At this MISCELLANEOUS NEWS. (From the Anglo-American 2 imcs.) Colonel Forn e y' s accounts, as Secretary o f the Senate, have been examined, and reported all right, 11 the Senate Committee on contingent expenses. The report which appeared in the Figaro of t he , marriage of Mdle. Adelina Patti i s , h er f at h er says , totally untrue. Last Tuesday at Rome the Pope blessed and Pre sented to the troops two stand ar d s , one f rom the Un ited &i - States and the other from Bar ce l ona . Hi s Holiness ,v vexed a speech on the occasion, in which he very warna ° maintained the justice of the defence of his rights to el integrity of his temporal dominion. Paymaster John F. Cunningham, United Sta tes Navy, has been assigned to the important post of InsPee tor at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. A French Canadian, named La Croix, testifies that he was in a doorway when he saw the shot fired wh ieb. killed Mr. NPGee, and when confronted with Whelan he Pro nounced him to be the man who fired the shot, assertil that ho had a full view of him at th e ti me but being ith l ' a that he would get into tr ou bl e, h e h a d hitherto remain ° silent on the subject. Mr. Geo. F. Train's insolvency case was before the i Irish Court again on Thursday. The American cor.sge at Cork had been summoned as a witness, but presslvo business prevented his attendance. Mr. D3WSO, Q.G . ' ° ,, P ; posed the insolvent's discharge on the part of the V ) '.t Vale Company, characterizing the schedule as the 10 : 0 unsatisfactory document ever brought into Court. rf £lOO,OOO demanded from Lord Stanley on the 4th of F e b , last as a claim for compensation for arrest seemed to the " only amount forthcoming to meat the debt s ' r, During the day " Colonel" Nagle, the Jacknell l ead e ; took his seat beside Mr. Train. The inseI VE I„ was himself examined, and said he had no trol over his wife's property, and none of his c' s ,;,; The iron he bought from the Ebbw Vale con-wail intended for tramways at Melbourne. He was of fel ; s £BO,OOO for his tramways in England. The case ' s' o t finally adjour ne d, an d one o f hi s sure ti es b e ing abse- Mr. Train was taken back to the Marshalsea. Colonel O'Neill addressed an enthusiastic Fe l3- ;0 , meeting at St. Louis on th e 20th April, winding 1 1 P 11 d a proposition for another raid on the territories of l e Majesty. Ho arrived at Chicago on the 22d, wher e addressed an immense crowd, urging his brethren t° e rol and march upon Canada. General Brisbin, who is writing " Grant Pap er ?, for the Cincinnati Gazette, r e l a t es th a t a t a c l a m lunc h i t) California he once a s k e d th e G enera l (th en C a pt. how ho liked clams. The latter drily replied th'to thought them a very good sub s titute for " gutta Per- oysters." Anthony Trollope arrived in the Scotia at ba York on WedneSday, 22d April. He has been sent ee"st'.. the Government on business connected with the F° , f office, and he will doubtless meet a hearty reception , 8- 1 1 ° 0 all English literary men he is most popular "o ver t water." Longfellow and his family are about to pal land a visit, and to spend the summer on the coutinee". Wilkes' Spirit gives us the following items :—.l ll-6 "., vt C ; l 6) tie' pro e hetic drama, " The Spirit of Seventy-six (. or The Coming Woman," was produced at Se l lth Theatre, in Boston, on the evening of Monday, the " - „J of April. It is cleverly written, sparkling and w itty', %, excellent satire, but not a good acting drama. Its d r :: t. tic construction is faulty, and lacks situation a nd ei."" c s , Chas. Walcot played Count Horace in the gloomy, ghostly, yawning-graveyard horror, entitled " P aull the at the Philadelphia Arch. Stephen Massett charcreshro 9hinameen $3 a pigtail to bear him talk English a ken China. The " White Fawn" will soon leave 130-0 10 fur fresh triumphs. Edwin Adams is after Forrest' r o succeeds that groat interpreter of Shakspere at Pitt Opera House. William O. Forbes, a well-known GoodSont" theatrical . manager, died recently in Brooklyn. ras little boys in Georgia schools get circus tickets as resra re of merit. Country papers publish that Miss ICel logg fused $4OO a night to sing in M a d r id on account of the /I‘, climate. Falconer's celebrated comedy of "Dos He Me ?" was produced a t th e A rc h, Phil a d e lph'a• 19/10- of the best stock companies in America will open 13° , f r om new theatre in the fall. Kate Denin is coming back e to California. The Del Lave family are in Mexico, an d ar join Chiarini at Guadalajara. Births. A" CHAMPION—On the Bth inst. at Florence-tel l -3c " It.' mouth, the wife of Lieut.:Col. R. H. ChanipW' of a daughter. o-ne' pe t DAY—On the Bth inst., at The Elms, Lordship'f wich, the wife of Frank Day, Esq., of a daughte'o3oo' WALLER—On the 6th inst., the wife o f Charles 13e3- Waller, Esq., Sydenhaw, of a son. Marriages. MILLARD -SANDERS—On the 7th inst. O f at o'• ti, Bloomsbury, William Edward, second . sou e^ ki fi t til",,, Millard, Esq., of 112, Aldersgate-street, E. 0., to 6- sfo r, Amelia, daughter of Fred. Sanders, Esql 473 ' street, London, W.C. SAI °F. SMART—DALLow—Ou the 7th inst. at Donipgtonbah[ovi; Mr. John Smart, of Scarborough, to EnimaJauer of tU hte ,ito p. 0K of The Brooklyns, Aibrighton, eldest daug h.to R. Dallow, Esq., of Summerfield, Wolv erlo Deaths. BARLEY—On the 7th inst., Dulcibella, wife W'll's Barley, of Walpole-stret, Chelsea. 131$ 11°P CORN WELL— On the Bth inst., at Plantation f-ru use ' o 6. Stortford, Herts, John C. Cornwell, Esq., oged-nribrbic° Folin—On the 7th inst., at 42, Sussex-square' OW' G. S. Ford, Esq., aged 79. INGHAM—On the Bth inst, at Watford Villa, '. 74 8 e . W Derbyshire, Jame. Ingham, Esq., J.P., a ged of 82, et, 0f .110. ,,tre- LARKE --On the Bth inst., Mr. Alfred Lark", laide-road, South Hampstead, and 38, Sa° l ' vi Piccadilly. , Chef WitsoN—On the Bth inst., at the Royal Hos Pita" Sir John M. Wilson, C. 8., K.H., aged 85- London : Printed and Published by WILLIA. to 1)1 of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tau Sus 030,0043t1 Strand, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in 111.iddltgiex.7119nclay, May 11, Ha