The Sun. — London, England, 1868-06-16 00:00:00

SPIItIVOP Tll2 PUBLIC JOURNALS, What, asks the Times is an Irish Reform Bill ? If any man were to construct an answer from a priori reasoning, what would he say ? An English Reform Bill has been an occasion of interminable wrangling, which may have been dignified, but which might also be described by other and less flattering phrases. It has destroyed a Ministry ttnd destroyed a party, and every one is at, liberty to de termine for himself what Ministry and what party it has destroyed, for, whatever may be the result of his delibera tions, he cannot be far wrong. It has done more. If we were to interpret the fears of three-fourths of the Conservat'.ves, and more than half the Liberals of the House of Commons, we should find it has destroyed the pr;stine character and glory of the nation. If this be the ea3eription of an English Reform Bill, what must an Irish Reform Bill be ? An occasion of infinite disputes ; the subject of disci: lsions protracted through endless nights, wed now that morning sittings are begun, carried onwards into consecutive days. Nothing of the sort. The Irish Reform Bill was evidently fated to confound the wise and to put to nothing the understanding, of the ex perienced. The very first night of the discussion, the Howie of Commons passed in committee from beginning to end of the Irish Reform Bill. The first night ! It was done in -half a night ; when members came back from dinner they found the work accomplished. The whole thing, to use the common phrase, was over almost as soon as it was begun. Greater unanimity could not be. There was brit one division, and that was not half a division. It required a diligent mind, or a soul obedient to the least crack of the whip, to understand it. It is sometimes plea sant to have the appearance-of doing work, even though it shonld appear on later reflection that no work has been done. The Times does not say this was quite the case on Monday, but it was something very like it. It must be obvious to every one that an Irish Reform Bill shorn of its redis tribution clauses is nothing, and if Mr. Disraeli desires to make a show of completing the work be has undertaken be must do something to correct the anomalies of IriSh representation. The original scheme of redistribution proposed by the Government was totally inadequate for its purpose. Mr. Disraeli or his colleagues are not to .blame, for it is plainly impossible for any except a strong Government to propound a real scheme for the redistribution of popular repre sentation. But the House of Commons comes to the assistance of a Ministry; and what is impossible at the beginning is made easy at the end. We agree with Mr. Gregory that it would be discreditable to leave to a future Parliament the task of reconstructing the consti tuencies of Ireland. There are, in fact, already upon the notice-book of the House of Commons the materials of a complete and satisfactc:y scheme, and the Ministry may without hesitation adopt the best of them. If Mr. Pim's suggestion of grouping instead of disfranchising the smaller boroughs of Ireland be acted tips n, a c•i fficient number of scats may be obtained without eiestr, ying the position of the small Lorouths. Let the cla - ms of Belfast and Cc.rk city be admitted as well as those of the counties, let Kingstown be enfranchised, and a scheme of representation of Ireland may be formed likely to last at least as long as that of any other part of the United Kingdom. We hope betw_en this and T.:ursday the Government will be pre pared with propufa's of ralistributiou which may be accepted as the necessary complement of the Irish bill. The Standard commends the progress made by the House in the matter of the Irish Reform Bill. Having gone into committee, only one obstacle of any importance was interposed to the progress of the bill. Mr. Lawson the late Attorney-General and member for the borough whose representative unworthiness had been so generally all we .1 in the pr lim . na-y ii;cussion, proposed, in regard to the borough fraucltise, to strike out in Clause 3 the words " more than £4," on the ground that the clause as it stood only enfranchised h3useh old ers rated above £4. After a short discussion the amendment was defeated by 188 to 177, and the proposal of. Color. el French for a reduction of the cluaty franealse accidentally dropping, the distribu. ton clauses w, re reached in a short tinno., in spite of s .ndry arneLdn ents of Mr. Bearden, which that gentle. man, with the Lest will to do it, had yet the censideratior not to press to a division. The Premier then proposed the postronement of the distribution clauses, which was imme diately ns:ci.ted to, :Ind by ten o'clock the bill was out of cGmnsittee. The Post enlrgiscs the late American Minister in Lon don, Mr. A 'a:us. The name of the Minister, it continue; new accredit e Ito our Court familiar to us. Mr. ileverdy Janson is aD.m( c ; but we have nothing to do with his pas ty (4. Lis Ca f rm. We nay receive him as an able constitutional lawyer and a consistent politician- one who might Le described compalativ.ely as the Berryer the MI el States. He is not endowed with the eloquence or the silver voice of the illustrious French advoCate, but he said to possess the rare and excaleat geniality whiCh M. Berryer can throw like a spell upon all whom he cares to cap t i ate. In the Senate Mr. It everdy Johnson has represented th : State in which he was I.orn, and in which he hoe practised his profession—" My Mai yland." He has over ' a:33(A the frontier of life that is marked by threescore years and ten, but we need only recall the not remote inci,le IA of his riding on a railway engine in order to reach Washirgton in time to vote c n a question of urgency to appraise the Fe l '.r:t of the man. His intellect is matured by age, his knowledge is comprehensive, and his reputation 'has not been breathed upon. The Senate unanimously ratified the nomination of the rrssident, and if we may not take it as a compliment there is something in such a selection that can be honourably divided. At any rate, it is not too much to suppose that the good understanding existing between this country and foreign pewe s depends very much on the character of the diplomatic representation by which it is supported. Mr. Iteverdy Johnson will, we doubt not, s.:ek to aid in the adjustment of differences that have arisen mainly from a misap; , rehension of the facts to which the law has to be applied. Mr. lleverdy Johnson will find that we are perfectly ready to bury the dead past on terms compatible with justice, and to come to a better . agreement with reference to the future. We are quite of opinion that international duties should be defined so as to prevent any misunderstaning cf th2ir meaning. Ihe Herald notes that Mr. -Moffatt, in a short bill, bee end, avoared to deal with cur bankruptcy system. That he should h .ve introduced :t to late in the session show his opinion of the urgent need of the measure which the action of his own leaders has thrown over. That he should have borrowed the essential features of the Government bill is a token of the estimation in which he holds the measure which the law officers of his political opponents had prepared. In brief, his object is to prevent frauds upon creditors through -. debtors' composition and ar rangement deeds, by making proof of bona fides obliga tory. Should the bill pass no deed will bind creditors unless the debtor deposit with it in the Court of Bank- ruptcy two written statements verified by his oath. The first is to specify all his debts and liabilities, the names and addresses of the persons to whom they are due, the manner in which they were contracted, and the value of the securities held. The second is to shear his property and credits, with the estimated value thereof. Alterations and amendments may be made, but they most be verified in the same way, and the original statements, the addenda and the affidavits are to be left for inspection at some place to be notified, at the debtor's expense by advertise. : meat in the London. Gazette. Assenting creditors are in like manner to prove their claims and detail their securities as if in bankruptcy, r and both arranging debtors and assenting creditors are to be liable to examination and cross-examinationl.'"Fitlse statements, whether by affidavit or oral examiridthija, arc to be punish e d wits the penalties of perjuryikandAre person is to be made bankrtspt on his own petition-unless he can show five shillings in thq 4 pouneboar e can satisfy the Court that the eq;fisite majority of his creditors, in formal meeting assem. bled, have agreed to take less. These are the principal provisions of the bill, in favour of which, as a fragmentary (rem of legislation, one can only say that it is intended to cure a crying evil and remove a great public scandal. Whether urgent necessity will secure its passing, or whether it will be busked prematurely by the lateness' of the :session, remains to be seen. But in either case it Inealel be remembered that but for Mr. Gladstone's wrong headedness in forcing on the Irish Church question,• this little Lill would have been rendered unnecessary by the passing of a measure which would for the first time have given us an effective and economical system of bankruptcy law, in the compass of a single statute and the period of a eingle session. If what everybody says must be true, then the Daily News declares surely never was such a beautiful spring as that which for five weeks past has made us believe it was summer. Hero is only the third week in June and the middle of hay making actually come. The first htirvest of the year is being already gathered, and even the wheat itself comes on apace. The farmers grumble at the drought, and on the hawthorn hedges here and there a plague of caterpillars has come ; but the farmers, as usual, while they grumble work, and are making bay while the sun shines, as the proverb bids them. in the country there is that scent of sweetness in the air which only comes in hay-time, and the perfume invades the towns where it comes like a message from Nature to call us away to the fields. Even in London these westeri* - !.ephyrs bring us sweet corp try air. At midnight duel early morning, when the chimneys haveceased to smoke and the dust of traffic lies slid, while its roar is not hushed, the pure, bright air, as clear as that . of a country toe; n, brings the scent of the far-off hayfields. .Nature is Duly cheerful, but gay, jocund, and blithe, as the poets ,_ say ; and gaiety, like laughter, is cont::. ; *ous. 1e I ' d are brightened by this smiling weather ; n feel younger ; invalids get independent ui the doct':r, and melancholy itself is cheated out o its gloom. Even trade, so long an invalid, begins to believe itself stronger ; and credit, so long low-spirited awl nervous, fe e ls a sli g ht encourggemen t ; an d politics, so long muddled and confused and foggy, begins to clear and brighten. The weather is quickening everything. Even our national opinion of our insular climate rises with the barometer day after day. We have said hard things about it, and never harder than in the dark days before and after Christmas ; but we all begin to retract, to feel that w e h ave s p o k en ill o f the weather and done injustice to our English sky. No spring after all can be like an English spring, no meadows like our English meadows, and no fields on earth like our English hayfields. But p u t i n t o th a t se tti ng , the rich j ewe l s of our English youth —see the perfumed , sunny hayfields made sunnier still with the glad laughter ' and pure merriment of D glad Vs sons and daughters,— nad you have a scene before you which brings back ths e;itthanted visi ons o f Old England's past, and makes one feel that she is merry England still. . • • THE NOVA SCOTIA DIFFICULTY. IMPORTANT DESPATCH FROM THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM. An address having been presented to the Queen by the members of the Nova Scotia Parliament, complaining that the Confederation of British North America was carried out without consulting the Nova Scotians, and against their wish, the Duke of Buckingham replied in a despatch dated June 4, which has just been published. After com plimenting the petitioners upon their loyalty, and ex pressing, regret that there should be pny dissatisfac tion, he goes on to say that there are two points— the one, that the confederation was accomplished without properly consulting the province ; the other, that the re sults may be prejudicial to its interests. In answer to the second point, the duke points onethat until a very recent date the Nova Scotians were the first to agitate in favour of confederation, and th.tt when the scheme was dropped by Canada it was revived by Nora Scotia. As regards the first point, that the colony had not been previously consulted, it is shewn that it has not been usual to appeal to the people in the provinces when such measures have been brought forward ; that no such appeal was made, for instance, when the two Canadas were united, in 1339, although much difference of opinion existed. The proposal to appeal to the pro vince was, moreover, actually rejected by a large majority in the Nova Scotia Parliament. Both "louses of that Parliament subsequently expressed their approval of confederation. The despatch goes on to say that vast obligations, political and commer cial, have been already contracted on the faith of a measin c so long discussed and so solemnly adopted, "and that the Assembly and the people of Nova Scotia will not be surprised that the Queen's Government feel that they would not be warranted in advis ing the reversal of a great measure of State, attended by so many extensive consequences already in operation, and adopted with the previous sanction of every one of the Legislatures concerned, and with the subsequent approval of the Legislatures of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick." LAW AND POLICE. BREACH OF PROMISE.—Iu the Court of Queen's Bench their lordships made the rule absolute for a new trial in the case Smith v. Clapham. The circumstances arc some what peculiar. The defendant had in 1803 seduced the plaintiff, and was summoned before the magistrates at Hull, and the usual weekly allowance was made for the support of the child. Nothing further occurred between the parties until 1860, when the defendant went over from Hull to the plaintiff's house at Woodmansey, and whilst there wrote a document stating that he was engaged to the plaintiff. After that he got married to another person, and in an action brought against him at York .Assizes the jury awarded £lOO damages. It was stated that the defendant was drunk at the time that he wrote the document, and there being some corroboration of the statement, the court made the rule absolute. DAMAGR3 FOR ILLEGAL DISTRESS.—In the Bail Court, in the case of Bowen v. Russell, the jury awarded £5O damages. It was an action for illegal distraint. The plaintiff, a pewterer in the Euston-road, was tenant to the defendant of a factory in Bath-passage, adjoining the Euston-road, and fitted it up with lathes and other machi nery worked by steam power supplied by the defendant. The defendant distrained for rent due, and some of the machinery was seized while it was at work, and sold under the distress. It appearing clearly that there was an illegality in levying the distress, the defendant's counsel, in the course of the evidence, consented to a verdict for the plaintiff for £5O. THE ACTION AGAINST THE " KENTISH MERCURY:u— rn the Court of Common Pleas the hearing of the case of Keen v. Hartnoll was resumed. The defendant, the pro prietor of the KentisA Mercury, was alleged to have com mitted a libel in stating that the plaintiff received a profit from a co-operative company, and that the said company was not " limited "as meant by the Limited Liability Act. The evidence of the plaintiff and his co•directors and others proved that there was no truth in these statements, that the association was registered, that they acted quite gratuitously, and had no arrangement to receive any sum whatever, and never had received anything, and that there was no arrangement with the wholesale. dealers that the association should re ceive 10 per cent. Those who bought 2s. Gd. tickets from the association got that advantage in dealing with certain tradesmen whose names were given. These statements were sail to be founded on the information of their shopman, a person named Annegram, with whom they Lad quarrelled. Per the defendant A nricgram was called, and he swore they were true, and that some tea which cost 2s. a lb. had been sold at 3s. a lb., or at an ad vanced rate of per cent. This was denied, and it was stated that an average of 4.1. per lb. was placed on tea to pay the cots of the association and the rent. It was said that the object of these amateur shopkeepers and govern ment c!erks was to ruin the shopkeepers who paid the taxes of the government. After bearing the summing up of the Lord Chief Justice the jury found for the plaintiff ; damages, £lO. £l,OOO DAMAGES AGAINST A RAILWAY COMPANY.—In the Court of Exchequer this was an action• brought by a minister of the Methodist Free Church to recover compen sation in damages for an injury he had received through the train in which he was travelling from Manchester to Bristol, en route to Exeter, coming into collision with a goods train. The negligence of the company being ad mitted, an arrangement was made by which a verdict was entered for the plaintiff ; damages, £l,OOO. SENDING UNWHOLESOME MEAT TO MARKET. —At the Guildhall, Mr. Joseph Roberts, a meat salesman in Newgate-market, was summoned before Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence, M.P., and Alderman Causton, charged with sending, and also with causing to be sent, to Newgate market, 7001 b. weight of beef intended for human food, the same being diseased, unsound, unwholesome, and unfit for the food of man. After hearing the evidence, Alderman Lawrence said he bad come to the conclusion that it was a very bad case. All the parties connected with it were fully conversant with meat and the meat trade. The evidence before the court was that a meat salesman of Newgate-market, carrying on business for years, had bought meat which was killed when it was on the point of death, had had it dressed for sale as human food, and sent it himself to the London market for sale in the usual way. It was a case which he could not deal with, and he must therefore commit the prisoner for trial. He was then fully committed for trial. The bench consented to accept bail—himself in £230, and two sureties in £lOO each. 1,200 tons of new potatoes from the Channel Islands and France were imported into Southampton"last week. • The Reeordersbip of Portsmouth has become vacant by the death of Mr George Pouldon, of the Inner Temple. Thorirppointment is in the gift of the Home Secretary. Ludy Napier and her family are in London, await ing the arrival of Sir Robert Napier, who h expected home within the next fortnight. Sir Robert intends to stay in England lit a few weeks, to settle various ques tions of expenditure with the Indian Office, after which ho will return to Bombay. FATAL ACCIDENT IN A MILL.—A roller turner, named Ralph Greenhalgh, vas about descending by a hoist, at the mill of Messrs. Hargraves, Bolton, on Satur day last, when he accidentally seized hold of the ascending rope, and was dragged to the top of the mill, and then fell a depth of about sixty feet. He was dreadfully injured, and died almost immediately. REDUCTION IN COLLIERS' WAGES.—The colliery proprietors in the district of Little Ifulton are reducing the wages cf the colliers in their employ. The reduction is equal to 15 per cent. The men at the Bank Colliery struck work last week, but they have since gone in at the reduced rate. Mr. F. Charlton's men have been out all the week. Considering the bad state of trade throughout the district, there is no doubt that the reduc tion will be accepted and work continued. SHOCKING • RAILWAY ACCIDENT. —An accident of a shocking and fatal character has occurred at the Great Northern Railway Station, Doncaster. Two men were engaged repairing an engine, when it was discovered that they wanted some longer screws than they were using. One of the men, named Ephraim Ormanroyd, went to fetch them, but in doing so was knocked down by an engine and tender they were shunting. They both passed over his body, and the poor fellow was manged in a most terrible manner, his limbs being torn off, and scattered about the line. Death was, of cours:. , , instantaneous. No blame appears to attach to anyone, the only wonder being that. the man did not see the approaching engine. The text of the Government ipill to amend the o f 1 .; gistration, so far as it reLtoi to the present year, I:as been pub!i;'hed. The bill is divided into two pal tF, and contains twenty- three clauses. The ninth clause of this bill proviies that where, ly reason of the disfranchisement or the alteration of the boundaries of any borough during the present sessfm of Parliament, any person who would not otherwise be so entitled be comes entitled to a county vote, the time for making a caim shall in such case this year extend to the 25th instead of the 20th of July. The eleventh clause pro v'des that in the event of a dissolution taking place this year, the first meeting of Parliament after . the dissolution may ta,'te p:aea any time after the lapse of 28 days freß the dp,tc Qi the pmlaulgtioli t 1-^ POPE HONOIIIUS AND PAPAL IMAM- BILI7Y. (From the Westminster Gazette.) As their fashion is, uncritical disciples too often exaggerate the errors of their masters. Such is the case with Mr. Renouf. What Dr. Bollinger insinuates, or implies, or infers from arguments which he adduces, Mr. Renouf rashly asserts as facts, which are denied only by mendacious writers—from 'Abbot John to F. Perrone—or disputed merely because of the alleged necessities of a theological system. The points which Mr. Renouf maintains in his pamphlet : " The Condemnation of Pope Honorius," are —lst, That Pope Honorius held. the Monothelite heresy ; 2nd, That he pronounced an heretical definition ex cathedra ; 3rd, That he was condemned by Popes and Councils for teaching heresy ; and 4th, That the Theory of Papal - . Infallibility is demon strably untenable. Against these conclusions of his thesis, Mr. Reiiouf listens to no argument, accepts no evi dence however entitled to consideration, and rejects every interpretation of Pope Honorius' words but that put upon them by the Monothe lite heretics. themselves ; and, with an assump tion of contemptuous disregard which ill be comes a Catholic writer in so grave a question, puts aside the almost unanimous testimony, as F. Schneemann abundantly proves, of Catho lic writers from the days of Honorius down to our own. Our business, however, is to dis cover for ourselves what authorities beyond the few writers whom he refers to, Mr. Renouf has for his singular assertions. The chief authority whom Mr. Renouf evidently relics on, and whom it is most strange that he does not cite by name, or even allude to throughout his pamphlet, is Dr. Dollinger. Is this " economy,' which Mr. Renouf so freely attributes to Popes and saints, caused by the ill-repute on account of his anti-Papal tendencies, which of late years Dr. Dollinger has fallen into among Catholics, both in Ger many, in England, and in Rome ? It was chiefly to refute the recent opinions of Dr. Bol linger on Pope Honorius, for they are not those maintained in his history al 'the Church, that F. Schneemann wrote his famous justification of Pope Houorius, which neither Dr. Dollinger nor any of his disciples have as yet been able to rebut. Putting, then, Mr. Renouf aside, let us in quire into the value and authority of the few Catholic writers who, during the 17th and 18th centuries, have accused Pope Honorius of heresy, and briefly examine the arguments on which that opinion is based. It is noteworthy that the two most important impugners of Pope Honorius' orthodoxy in modern times brought forward their accusations under the pressure of external circumstances, not to say at the instigation of motives hostile to the Papacy, and that both these writers, in doing so, contradicted the deliberate conclusions arrived at by calm and critical study in works which will deservedly hand down their names to the admiration of posterity. These twin de famers of Pope Honorius are Bossuet and Dr. llinger. Bossuet, in his " D6fense de la de clarations du Clerge Gallican," and Dr. Dol linger in his " Papstfabeln." Yet Bossuet in his classical work, " Discours sur l'histoire universelle," speaking of the Monothelites, says They concealed their poison under ambiguons phrases ; a false love of peace prompted Pope Honorius to propose to them not to speak either of one or two wills. The Pope, deceived by their artifices, in his generous mercy consented to a silence in , which false hood and truth were alike suppressed." Further on, he says :—"The Council of Constantinople did not spare Honorius because he had spared the heretics." Thus wrote Bossuet before he became a tool in the hands of Louis XIV., at whose command, as is well known, his de fence of the declaration of the Gallican clergy was written, in which, as a necessary defence of Gallicanism, he brought against Pope Honoring the charge of heresy. In like manlier Dr. Dollinger, in his " Lehrbuch," in which he deliberately and critically treats of the doctrines of the Church, says that Pope Honorius did not distinctly declare himself in favour of the Monothelites, and that if he maintained that there was one will in Christ, in saying so he only meant the conformity of the human with the divine will. This in terpretation of Pope Honorius' words is the natural interpretation put upon them by the almost unanimous judgment of Catholic theo logians and historians. How comes it that now Dr. Dollinger has suddenly veered around, and put on Pope Honorius' language a con trary construction? "If the Monothelite heresy was so emphatically and so distinctly contained, as Dr. Dii'linger now asser t s, i n t h e l etters o f Pope Honorius, how was it," asks F. Schnee mann, " that the great Church historian had, for so long a period, not been able to detect it F" Whatever may have been Dr. Dollinger's motive in now adopting the Monothelite in terpretation, the use, he makes of the alleged heresy of Pope Honorius is so to circumscribe the limits and the relation of Papal Infalli bility to the Church as to destroy its essential character. In addition to Dr. Dollinger, Professor Hefele, in the " Tiibin ger Q uartalschrift" (1857, vol. 1), and in his "Coneiliengeschichte" ( - 01. 4), has treated of the question of Pope Honorius. Professor Hefele says, as to the result of his investigation, that Honorius had given expression not to heretical, but to un clear thoughts, and consequently did not intend by his words to convey a heretical meaning, and only by his prohibition of the expression " two energies," and the improvident use of the technical term of the heretics—one will— did he become a participator in their heresy. But Professor Hefele makes use of too strong an expression when he says Honorius forbade the expression " two energies," for in reality he only advised its discontinuance. The words he used were not jubemus, but only hortamur ; and moreover he made the messengers of Sophronius promise only conditionally not to use the expression in case that was that their opponents did not retain the expression " one energy." In examining the authorities whom Dr. Del linger cites in support of his view, F. Schnee mann observes that the best of the Gallican writers, such as Tourney, Natalis Alexander, Languet, and De Marca vindicate Pope Hono rius from the charge of heresy ; and he then proceeds to examine the value of the testimony of the writers on which Dr. Dellinger relies. One of these was Richer, a friend of the noto rious Sarpi and Dupin, both of whom were banished by the French Government on ac count of their un-Catholic opinions. Dupin, especially, was charged by Bossuet with hold ing un-Catholic doctrines, and was denounced by Pope Clement XI. as a man of very bad principles. And Richer's work, moreover, was proscribed by two French' provincial Councils, as well as by Rome, and at the Council of Pistoja, the development of his principles was condemned as heretical. , But it may be alleged that Bossuet, in his "Defense de la declarations du Clerge Gallican," which was the great bulwark of Gallicanism, adopted the opinions of these writers ; but what little value as an independent and critical testimony is to be attached to this chef d'aviture of Gal licanism may be learnt from the external his tory of this work. It was written, as has already been said, at the command of the King, in order to defend the Gallican articles, which had incurred the disapprobation of the Holy See, and it was never published during Dos suet's lifetime. Up to his death he was engaged in introducing emendations, and so doubtful was lie as to the justi ce o f th e cause be had', unwillingly undertaken to defend that he did not venture to publi s h thi s b ook daring his lifetime. Indeed, he entrusted the manuscript to his nephew, on the express condition to give it only to the King, whom he besought not to allow of its publication, unless it was abso lutely required on grounds of public necessity. Forty years later this book was published with out, however, the numerous emendations made by the author, without the consent of the THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 16, 1868. King, and not under the conditions - .which its author had imposed. Many doubts, and not without reason, have been expressed as to its genuineness. " What kind of judgment," asks F. Schneemann, "is to be pronounced on such a work ? Is a work published after the death of its author and against his express wish, and without any of his emendations, en titled to very great consideration ? And what is its internal value ? It is not," our author remarks with great justice, " the result of calm investigation ; it is not the work of an untrammelled. mind ; it is written, indeed, by great genius, but in the service of an absolute monarch in defence of a bad cause. What can the greatest genius do if it fall into evil ways ?" And yet this book is the chief autho rity which is set up against the giants of Catholic literature and science, who have defended Pope Honorius. But it is time to pass on to the other authorities appealed to as evidence against Honorius's orthodoxy. One of these is Cardinal de la Luzerne, of whose judgment on this question Mr. Renouf makes great use, forgetting, however, to inform his readers that at the period just prior to the French Revolution, when • the Honorius ques tion was so much discussed, he not only voted in favour of Pope Honorius, but wrote in de fence of his orthodoxy. It was only later on, after the French Revolution, when he was en deavouring to show that the safety of the Church in France depended on its intimate connection with the Bourbon throne, that he wrote an apology of the Gallican articles, and that he changed his opinions on the Hono rius question. W have now to exainine faults graver than mere superficial criticism or hasty gene ralization into which an unhappy anti-Papal spirit seems to have betrayed Dr. Dollinger. Since Dr. Dollinger's influence has not been without its evil effect in England, we are under no obligation to attenuate the judgments pro nounced by competent critics in• Germany, that too great a reliance must now no longer be placed upon the historical accuracy or critical acumen of Dr. Dollinger, especially in matters in which the rights and prerogatives of the Papacy are concerned. F. Schneemann exposes, without comment or any approach to severity in statement, several instances, in which Dr. Dollinger has been guilty of sup pression of evidence that told against his case, and of perversion or misrepresentation of the judgment of witnesses whom he cites in sup port of his views. Let us take, says F. Schnee mann, the instance of Cardinal Sfondrate, Bel larmine, and Baronius, together with many others, as is well known, maintained that the acts of the sixth Synod had been falsified. Thereupon Dr. Dollinger remarks in his Papstfabeln that against the endeavours of Bellarmine, Baronius, and of others after them to set aside historical and copiously attested facts by throwing suspicion on witnesses and documents Ca r di n al Sf r ondate has spoken out strongly i n th e f o ll ow ing words : " Q u id hoc est aliud quam contratorrefitem navigare, omnemque historiam ecclesiasticam in dubium vocare ? Sublata vero historic et consequenter traditione usuque ecclesiae, quae to arma contra haereticos satis valida habebis ? Male ergo, ut nobis quidem videtur, Ecclesiae illi con sulunt, qui ut Honorii causam tueantur, his toriam ecclesiastic= exarmant.—Ergo si tes tibus agenda res est, Honorius Papa haere ticus fait." Strong words of a verity, observes F. Schneemann; but they lose their force, at least inasmuch they seem to speak against Hono rius, Bellarmine, and Baronius by what imme diately follows, but which Dr. Dollinger, we may observe, omits : "Si vero causam ipsam rationesque attendas, ob quas haeresis postu latur Honorius, fatendum est, innocentem esse et noxa liberum." Cardinal Sfondrate proves this at length, and maintains that: "Honorius haeresim Mouotheletarum non adstruit sed plane destrult.—Clarissime dicit, non esse di cendam unam voluntatem vel operationem, sed unum operantem. Apertissime singulis naturis propriam operationem tribuit." So much for the fairness of Dr. Dollinger's mode of mak ing use of quotations. We come now, says F. Schneemann, to another defender of Papal infallibility. Dr. Bollinger, atter pointing out that the Jansenists maintained Honorius had been unjustly treated by the Sixth Synod, which deceived itself; but that their opponents by the distinction be tween positive and negative heresy, did violence to the clear words of the Synod, thus speaks of Fenelon (Papstfabeln, p. 148) ; " But Fenelon has already reminded us that by all these arti fices whereby the orthodoxy of Honorius is in tended to be saved nothing is gained." Dol linger thus seems, says F. Schneemann, to refer the criticism of Fenelon to the assertion of the Jansenists as well as to that of their op ponents. But unjustly ; for Fenelon in the passage quoted nowhere designates the dis tinction between positive and negative heresy as an artifice or idle interpretation. We find, indeed, just before the passage quoted by Bol linger, a similar sentence : En vain pour parer i cet inconvenient ou se retrancherait a dire que ce Pape n'a etc anathematise par le concile que comme fauteur d'heresie, et non pas comme heretiquee. But these are not the words of Fenelon, but of the Jansen ists, whom he is refuting. How, moreover, could Fenelon call this distinction an artifice, as he emphatically at least elsewhere expresses his concurrence with those who maintain this distinction. But even the words of Fenelon, which Dollinger quotes but does not trans late quite accurately, indicate as much. Fene lon writes thus : "Suppose que le sixieme con cile suivi en ce point par plusieurs paper, cut cm que le texte d'Honorius etait heretique, &e., &c." By this construction Fenelon in tends it to be understood that the supposition which he makes was not made in reality but was only imaginary, and, consequently, that the Church had not condemned Honorius as a heretic. But Dollinger ascribes to Fenelon just the contrary, making him repudiate as an artifice the distinction between heresy and the favouring of heresy. In another point Fene lon differs from Dollinger. Dollinger says of Torquemada, Baronius, Bellarmine, and of others, that they simply sacrificed the dignity of an (Ecumenical Council to the interests of their theory, and maintained, as did the Jan senists later, that the Council was deceived in its judgment of the Decretals of Honorius. Verily, observes F. Schneemann, a severe re proach against such devout and learned men. Fenelon, he shows, on the contrary, proves by an exhaustive examination and comparison of the words of these theologians that the expres sions, although inaccurate, had in reality a Catholic sense. Referring to Dr. Dollinger, F. Schneemann says the example of /lonelon shows us with what care Catholic theologians should follow the principle, l ong ago expressed by the Fathers, that th e wor ds of a Catholic should only, under compulsion, be interpreted in an un-Catholic sense ; but especially is this true in regard to the departed worthies of Catholic theology. Want of space forbids us to pursue in, further detail the exposure of the misin terpretations and false quotationsinto which Dr. Dollinger has been betrayed. It is enough to remark that Dr. Dollinger quotes Bishop d'Argentre as maintaining " that the Council had rightly condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic ;" but F. Schneemann shows that neither the words quoted, nor their equivalent, are to be found in the passage referred to by Dr. Dollinger, but that the - direct contra dictory is maintained. For in the passage in question, d'Argentre refers to a treatise of his on Pope Honorius, in which he expressly main tains and proves that it cannot be said that Honorius was condemned by the Church as a heretic. Again, Dr. Bollinger claims Cardinal Orsi, the ardent upholder of Papal infallibility ; as acknowledging the untenableness of the efforts made by short-sighted theologians to maintain the orthodoxy of Honorius. But De la, Luzerne, whom F. Schneemann quotes, not having himself access to the works of Cardinal Orsi, says that th e C ar di n al maintained the opinion that Hon or i us wa s now accused of heresy only by Protestants. Professor Hefele, also simply reckons Cardinal Orsi among the defenders of the orthodoxy of Honorius. We can ourselves attest to the fact that Cardial Orsi maintains an opinion in this controversy directly the reverse of that attributed to him by Pr. Dollinger. So much, then, for the accuracy of Dr. Dollinger. The very authorities whom he has cited in behalf of his opinion speak against him. In repudiating Dr. Dollinger's assumption of the right of putting an exclusive monothelite interpretation on Pope Honorius' letters to the Patriarch Sergius, in exposing the inaccuracy, to say the least, of his quotations, and the paucity and untrustworthiness of the witnesses he brings into court agai ns t th e orthodoxy of the Pope, and, above all, in reminding Catholics that the acts of a Council are only valid in so far as they are confirmed by the Pope, F. Schncemanu has, by antici pation, completely cut the ground from be neath Mr. Renouf's feet. Mr. Renouf, with uncritical blindness, seems in his pamphlet to have relied implicitly on Dr. Dollinger's asser tions, trusted to his authorities, and servilely, though without acknowledgment, adopted his conclusions ; he cannot, therefore, be surprised that his rude and blundering attacks on the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius, on the sanctity, on the venerable wisdom, and the profound learning of so many saints, theologians, and historians, should disentitle him to any con sideration beyond what is charitably extended to a blind, and, therefore,' partly irresponsible, follower of an untrustworthy leader. Mr. Renouf has the greatest right to complain of Dr. Dollinger. We should do P. Schneemann an injustice were we not, before quitting this portion of our subject, to refer to his philosophical remarks on the general principles of interpretation. It is in this particular power of referring facts to general principles that Dr. Dollinger is deficient. In spite of his learning and acute ness, he is sadly wanting in breadth of mind ' and in the power of philosophic generalization. This want is conspicuous among many and great excellencies in his Church history; it lies at the bottom of most of his inconsistencies and errors. The very keenness of his mental vision contracts its range and predisposes him to seize upon isolated facts to the neglect of general principles, by which alone these facts can be reduced to an intelligible and consistent system. Under the impulse of irritation of external circumstances, this original defect is painfully conspicuous in. most of Dr. Dollinger's recent publications, but more especially so \in his Papstfabele Judged by the rule which F. Schneemann lays down as a universal principle in Canon as well as in Civil law, Dr. Dollinger's judgment on Pope Honorius must be reversed. This principle recognised in like manner in the Roman law lays down as a universal rule that ambiguous expressions admit of an in terpretation, especially by him who made use of them, and by his successor in legislation ; and, lastly, great weight is attached to the ex planation of science, especially if it be unani mous. Applying this principle to the decision of the Honorius question, F. Schneemann s a y s it is not evident that the words of the Pope are to be taken in the heretical sense, he - will moreover, even grant, that it is not clear that they are to be understood in an orthodox sense. Room is left for interpretation. If, then, Honorius, especially in his first letter, expressed himself inaccurately, yet in his second he ex plained himself more clearly, and maintained in a most unmistakeable manner the Catholic Dogma against the MonOthelites. Moreover, ambiguous words are to be explained according to the intention of the author, and abundant evidence, as we have already seen, attests to what was the real meaning .of Pope Honorius. How is it possible, says F. Schneemann, after duly weighing the various testimony as to the intention of the Pope, the report of his secre tary who composed the letters, the judgment of the Roman clergy, and the official decla ration of his successor, together with the almost unanimous agreement in the CathOlic world of science and letters as to the orthodox meaning of Pope Honorius, how is it possible, then, in contradiction to all this evidence, to attach an heretical sense to his words. In justice to F. Schneemann we ought to mention here that we have had to omit, partly for want of space, and partly on account of its scientific character, the exhaustive energetical examination of the - two incriminated letters of Honorius, the result of which we may state is a conclusive proof, to be evaded only by subterfuge or perversion of facts, that the letters of Honorius in no way teach or contain heresy. In vain did so great a genius as Bossuet expend twenty years' labour in endea vouring to convict the Pope of teaching heresy ; in vain have been the labours and the learning of Dr. Dollinger; all their efforts have been d a shed againstto pieces the Rock on w hi c h the Church was founded ; for " Peter," as Bossuet himself says, "lives in his Successors." If, then, as we have seen, no heretical inter pretation can justly be put on Pope Honorius's• letters, what becomes of the allegation so loudly and so raehly blurted out, not indeed so much by Dr. Dollinger as by his indiscreet disciple, Mr. Renouf, as to the utter and evident un tenableness of the theory of Papal infallibility? Next week we shall enter more particularly into this aspect' of the question, and by the help of Dr. Ward's latest publication—the ablest, per haps, and the most convincing of his invalu able series-:-contrast Mr. Renouf's attempt to substitute for Papal infallibility the infallibility of General Councils with F. Ryder's attempt, so to circumscribe and limit the infallibility of the Pope and Church as to make its exer cise not a matter of constant use, but of rare occurrence in the course of centuries. Were we now called upon to express an Opinion as to the relative dangers to Catholicity of the two schemes we should, not speaking of the manner in which they are propounded, with out hesitation pronounce F. Ryder's novel and insidious theory to be by far the more danger ous, since its adoption by English Catholics would practically render, as far as they are concerned, the infallible judgment of the Church inoperative on all but very -rare and exceptional occasions, and would, as Dr. Ward, we think has somewhere well observed, com pletely revolutionize the • attitude of their minds towards the Church. THE TENURE-OF•OFFICE ACT. . (Froin the Anglo-American Times.) The history of the Tenure-of-Office Bill—if the New York Tribune's correspondent be correct— shows that the measure wss not framed merely as a check on ANDREW JOHNSON, but resulted from the deep thought of a gentleman who had studied con stitutional law, and desired to rectify the evil of the 1 inordinate pat ronage con f erre d on t h e P RESIDENT. We have always expressed a strong conviction that the power of removal and of ad interim appoint ments is one that no constitutional ruler ought to be allowed to exercise unchecked. Colonel J. A. HAMILTON, son of the celebrated ALEXANDER HAMILTON, after long study of constitutional law, arrived at the conclusion that not only was it inex pedient that a President should exercise this power, but that legally he could not remove without the consent of the Senate. The correspondent traces the history of the Act as follows : —" In order to subject his (Colonel ll.teriteroN'e) views to discus sion, a dinner party of gentlemen, more or less in terested in such questions, was arranged at his house on the sHudson River, in alcember, 1858. There were present Messrs. D. D. FIELD, AVM, EVARTS, C. A. D kNA. (then editor of the Tribune), E. L. GODICIN (now editor of the Na . tion), C. L. Bee.cE, and others. Messrs. RAYMOND and BRYANT were invited, but were not ab!e to be present. After the cloth was remav,id Colonel IlAerturox, in his remarkably cle•Lr style, presented his argument, referring to the Federalist, No. 77, the debates on the Act establishing the State department, and other documents. All the persons present seemed to agree that the argument was sound, and that they would do all in their power to secure the pas sage of an Act requiring removals as well as appoint ments to be made ' by and with the consent of the Senate.' The only objection offered was the prac-' tin' ono that no political party could eyes be in‘. duced to forego its own power of patronage through its President. Col. HAMILTON was requested to print his views, which he subsequently did in pamphlet form,and submitted it to Mr.EvAwrs and Mr. FIELD. In 1859 he laid the plan of the bill before Mr. SEWARD (then Senator), who seemed to approve it, and who introduced him to Senator WILSON of Masia,chusetts, as the proper person to present such a bill. Mr. WILSON consented to do. so, and he and Mr. SEWARD had many conferences on the subject. On the 20th of February, 1859, Mr. WIL SON wrote that it was too late in the Session to bring the bill forward. The threatened secession then put the subject in the background. In 1866, however, Colonel Ilamitsrox renewed his efforts, and was introduced by Mr. SUMNER to Senator HENDERSON, who entered oa the subject with great earnestness and zeal, an I finally presented and secured the passage of the law which Colonel llamturoN had so long been urging, the present Tenure-of-Office Bill. The section of the Act Which established the office of Controller of the Currency, whereby this officer cannot be removed without the consent of the. Senate, passed early in the war, was inserted at the suggestion also of Col. HA HILTON." The names of the gentlemen instrumental in em bodying Colonel HAMILTON'S opinions in the Act Will be read with interest, as so many of them.were afterwards instrumental, to use, O'CosTNELL's phrase, "in driving a coach anl six through it." Mr. 1-lEsmErisoN, of Missourri, who introduced it, aeq'iitted the PRESIDENT of a crime in its direct in fringement. Mr. EVARTS was ANDREW JOHNSON'S leading counsel ; Mr. Tnuensur.r., of Illinois, also vwed the acquittal of the PRESIDENT • yet when the Act was first disca333.l in the Senate' he said— " The PRESIDENT has no authority to fill-a vacancy which exists in an offi ee by himself without the ad vice and consent of the S3nate, unless that vacancy occurs while the Senate is not in session ; and one object of this amendin !tit (introduced by himself) - is to prevent appointments of that character. I. deny that if a vacancy exists in an office while the Senate is here the PRESIDENT has any power to fill up that vacancy without the advice and consent of the Senate. - It takes the PRESIDENT and the Senate both to make au officer." We do not question Se nator Tnuainum.'s right to express such opinions, and yet to form a judgment wholly at variance with them in his judicial capacity when the subject came up in the form of a charge against the PRESI DENT. He.may,and doubtless does, agree with us that the PRESIDENT should not hold the power of dismis sal and appointing ad interim officers while the Senate is in Session. The period of which we write was the 30th April, 1866, and the debate on the Senate to which we allude was remarkable for a prediction by Mr. REVERDY JOHNSON; He said, "The Se nate of the United States or both branclp. of Con gress may become so dissatisfied with the PRESI DENT of the United States as to be exceedingly anxious to gat rid of him. His remaining in office may interfere with some favourite policy of Congress. Congress my look to political measures upon which, as they suppose, the welfare of the country de pends, and find that they cannot accomplish their purpose in having such measures adopted as long the incumbent of the Presidential office is in his seat. There are two ways to get rid of him : one ,is to impeach him ; that requires to be successful a vote in the body of two-thirds ; another is to starve him out, and that may be accomplished by refusing to pay his salary." It is now practically conceded that the failure of the Court has . confirmed the right of the PRESIDENT to remove his Cabinet officers even during the session of Congress, but this arbitrary authority is comparatively unobjec tionable. It is not the right of removal to which we so strongly demur, but the right of appointment to the great State offices. No PRESIDENT should be compelled to work with a Cabinet Minister wholly obnoxious to him, but the power •of appointment evolves far weightier considerations than the per sonal feelings of a President, or even the smooth working of the Government machinery. Whether the PRESIDENT'S acquittal establishes the principle or not, we have every expectation that Mr. JENCKES'S Civil Service Reform will be carried, and will so destroy bureaucracy and patronage as in a large measure to render innocuous such a power, if fully acquired by Presidents. The enornalus patronage of the Cabinet officers renders them despotic in their offices, and while the. PRESIDENT cin at pleasure make and unmake these little kings, through them his influence is overwhelming. Bat let the Civil - Service be permanent, the offices being held during good behaviour, and even though the PREIDENT re tained the right of appointment ad interim, the chief officers, being shorn of their despotic authority, would lessen the danger of abuse. It is, perhaps, in Mr. JENCICES'S Bill that we must look Lr the best solution of the difficulty, and we are glad to see that it meets with a support so hearty throughout the nation. TILE LATEST SCAN:UL. - The public, whose craving for scandal and sensa tion is insatiable, are so very accommodating as to keep up a perennial supply which the press has only to cook and garnish. Otherwise, what would be come of the great dailies and the catch-penny process by which they keep up their great machinery and pour over the country their long columns of type. Now the scene is in a police court, then in that of the Queen's Bench. In the one the actor may be a Madame Rachel, in the nther the Lord Chief Justice of England. From Belgrave-square there is a delightful elopement—in Clerken well a diabolical explosion—under an office floor is discovered a trunk full of human bones--but the horrified gazers are almost immediately in full pursuit of the missing Spoke. Yet, constant as is the supply within the area of a few miles of St. Paul's, the emissaries of the Press are abroad over the world in search of interesting items. Sir WTi ham Mansfield, from India, furnishes a Pickle Case =Mr. Eyre, from Jamaica, a triangle, and " a cat," tipped with piano Wire. Andrew Johnson keeps America alive with an excitement which finds an echo in London, during his trial, " as the greatest criminal of the age," while King Theodore belies conjecture, blowing out his own, and not his pri soners', brains. The sensational items of the week at least to the date at which we write are the " slang wanging" between the highest judges of the second highest court of the realm anent Mr. Justice Blackburn's charge to the grand jury in the Eyre case, and the charge against Madame Rachel, involving as a side issue an accusation against that pride of the British peerage, Lord Ranelagh. A scandal to be perfect in England must Involve— however unjustly—the name of a lord, and happily in this instance the British snob is not disappointed. Mrs. Mary Tucker Borradaile, described by a re porter as a lady fifty years of age, wearing a quan tity of reddish hair curled over her forehead, alleges that she has been stripped of every shilling she had,. amounting to £4,000, in her matrimonial pursuit of his lordship., Madame Rachel being the deOgner and the instrument in• the scheme. The evidence of the plaintiff is something too good to be. silently passed. Considering that s h e i s a woman of some half-century's experience, that she is a widow, and has therefore been initiated into all the delights of matrimony; had she herself not given the evidence it could scarcely be credited. Of course she visited Madame Rachel to be male " beautiful for ever ;" of course this result was to end in a grand matrimonial alliance ; and of course such advantages were only to be purchased by hard coin. A heavy sum was required for being made " beautiful fur ever," and a still heavier for the advantageous matrimonial alliance. One of the ceremonies preparatory to both events -was the bath, in a room where crevices afforded a view of the beauties it was Madame Rachel's business to put a new polish upon. Then Madame Rachel is alleged to have told the widow that the noble lord was ravished by the appearance she put in through the crevices. An interval fol lowed, and the. person representing Lox d Ranelagh, who by the same token must have been one .of no ordinary beauty if at all like, kept up a Passionate correspondence, evidently excited by the bath scene. Of course love and mammon were mixed in " Wil liam's" effusions, and the lady first paid £l,OOO to Madame Rachel, then £1,400 said by Madame Rachel to be needed by Lord Ranelagh for Volun teering purposes, small sums being thrown in here , and there as demanded, together with larger sum for diamonds arid trousseau. When the fountain of the dupe began to fail, and she urged Madame Rachel, to wliom her trousseau had been sent, for her money or her clothes, Madame Rachel told her to go and ask ber dear William for them, and then by degrees the lady of mature age, whose glass might have told her how completely she bad been swindled in the first condition, and that on which the other was supposed to binge, became aware that she was the victim of a conspiracy. The most " plucky " proceeding the ambitious widow, who thus recklessly rushed into the matrimonial market with Madame Rachel as a guide, was in bringing the case b e f ore the public. Whether her story be - true or not it re quired an extraordinary degree of moral courage to face the position in which she voluntarily placed herself. If the can establish the case she will cer tainly do good, for one of the safe-guards o f the schemers who thus plunder is, that the victims so dread publicity that they submit to the robbery rather than become the laughing -stock of the public. Of course Lori Ranelagh, who was present at the investigation, solemnly deuie.l all knowledge of the letters or of Mrs. B:riTodaile, whom he had never seen till about two months ago, when he had met her at the solicitor's office, while the transactions, of which she was the dupe, began about two years ago. The magistrate demanded twO good bail of /1,000 each, and remanded the else. This investigation is of unusual importance, or we would not, as it has still to be tried, now allude to h, nor, indeed,' at any other time. It involves either the punish ment due to a gross and systematic swindle, or to a vile attempt to entangle people in a discreditable proceeding ; such, for instance, as Lord Ranelagh, who solemnly affirms his total ignorance of the transaction. The public are indebted to Mrs. Borra daile, however the case may go, for giving the law an opportunity of making an example of a detest able'criminal, for a crime is involved of which some person must be guilty, and it will be the magistrate's business to,discover who the person is. Recently a woman. had the courage to brave public ridicule, in exposing what the judges pronounced to be a gross imposition ; and if every one acted as Mrs. Lyon did in the Spiritualist case, there would be fewer victims, for the profession of victimizing would become too dangerous to suit the book of many male or-female rascals.—.4nylo -American l imes. THE PUBLIC DEBT OF THE UNITED SLITES. Mr. U‘CULLOCH has published his Statement of the Public Debt of the United States to the Ist of, June, and the figures, as usual, have been for warded to England in roan d numbers. The total Debt was then $2,643,500,000, against $2,639,500,000 on the Ist May, being an increase of $4,000,000. The cash in the Treasury had decreased by a larger sum, being $133,500,000, against $139,000,000 on the Ist May, which shows a loss of $5,500,00 0 1 making a total against the nation of $9,500,000. The Statement of Ist May, as compared with that of Ist April, showed a total gain of $18,680,000. Up to May, money was accumulating in the Tres' sury for the payment of the half-yearly interest then due on Government Bonds, amounting to over $27,000,000 in gold, equal in . currency to • $38,000,000. This sum has been paid, and the consequence is an increase in the apparent in' debtedness. The Pall-Mall Gazette seizes all or portunities of twisting any subject it can to the' disparagement of the United States, and tbia loss to the Treasury affords an opportunity. Net a word was said of the large increase of the May, amounting to nearly double the sum repre sented by the loss of Ist June ; not a word was said of the enolmaus payment of interest in the interval; the bare fact being seized as it offers a chance of damaging the credit of the United States. Mr• BRIGHT is dragged in to explain away his state ments and predictions about the ease and rapidity with which the Americans are to pay off their debts: Let him , now explain to the public how much the debt has actually been reduced since the close of the war, and further account for the fact that an increase of four million dollars took place in the total amount in the month of May just past. At the same time there was a decrease of cash iii tha Treasury to the extent of five millions and a half." A portion of the explanation - desired is given above, and we may reply for Mr. Bright, who perhaps never sees the Pall Mall Gazette, to the other question asked. On March Ist, 1866; the debt of the United states bad reached the sum of $2,827,868,930. The present return thus shows a total reduotiou in two yearn and g quarter of $188,369,000, or little short of 30 millions sterling—the decrease being at the rate of fully £12,000,00 annually—and this is in the face of one of the most disastrous commercial years ever known in the United States. The revenue for the year will certainly be over $400,000,000, and le likely to reach $450,000,000; which will leave 3 good surplus. The receipts from the income tag and the duties on imports are greater than contem plated in the original estimates. Both mainly de' pend on the state of business, which is now rapidly reviving throughout the Union. The revenue feels the effects of prosperity much more speedily than tha t of England, because every American is more or less connected with business. The surprising fact is that the cmintry should have passed through its period of depression following on the total derange' ment clued by the great war with so little dis aster. It is the only nation in the world that could thus have passed through the ordeal ; and there was not a financier of Europe who three years ago believed it to be possible even iu America. There is some' thing absurd in the fact that the financial smash a° long predicted as likely to follow on the close of the war in the Unite States should have really taken place in England. We believe that Mr. BRrala will soon be justified by the event in asking Eng lishmen to admire the ease and rapidity with which Americans pay their debts. There is certainly 0 0 moral to be drawn from the latest monthly state ment injurious to the United States, as insinuated in the Pall Mall. As we can scarcely believe that the writer who penned the " Occasional Note" was ignorant of the facts, we are compelled to think that he must have intended to pervert their meaning. Let our readers glance at the money article of the Springfield Republican (to be found to-day in our columns), intended solely for circulation in the richest States of the Union among well-informed Americans, and not " cooked" Of Europeans, and they will see what opinion is hela, in the United States of the value of the National Bonds. [ADVEBTISEMENT4—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills.l Rheumatic and Nervous P a in s .—Th e c hill y morn i ngs an evenings will provoke these tortures in constitutions suss ceptible of these mal a di es . N o thi ng a ff or d s so muc h re lief as Holloway's ointment well rubbed upon the skin after repeated warm fomeutatione. Thousands of testimonial o bear witness to th e won d er f u l com f or t o bt a i ne d f rom tbis safe and eimple treatment, which all can adopt. Hello" way's ointment, assisted by the judicious use of his 0 115 ' is especially serviceable in assuaging the sufferings frol cramp and other muscular pains. Nor are th ese re rnedic: lass successful in arresting diarrhoea, in easing stomach" ° pains, and in removing other internal complaints prevalen t in summer—when profuse perspirations suddenly checke d continually occasion these inconveniences. Births. I>ERR -0 a the 12th inst., at Dalkeith House, N. 8., Lacil Victoria Kerr, of a daughter. PAULL—On the 13th inst., at 38, Devonshire-place,'" the wife of Henry Paull, Esq., M.P., of a daughter. STEWART—Ou the 14th inst., at 24, Green-street, the Lady Isabella Stewart, of a son. Marriages. Any:salt —STANTIRQUGH —Oa the 13th inst., at St. peter Eaton-square, Capt. Henry Carlton Arymar to Sari' Rosalie, widow of the late Walter Stanbrough. ROLFE NICEIOLEON —On the 13th inst., at Great Pa%f ol / 1 Charles H. Rolfe, Esq., of Iran Gate, Doncaster, to ill 3r if Iloward, daughter of the Rev. H. Nicholson, vicar 0 Great Paxton, Hunts. - Deaths. CiiowxE—On the 13th inst., at Ealing, Middlesex, Chary E. Chowne, Esq., M.R.C.S., aged 64. Dowsos—On the 13th inst., at Meads buss, near East, bourne, Joseph Dowsou, Esq., aged 38. RATHONT— On the 10th inst., Ethvard Raymont, 11 011 ' well-hill, St. Alban's, aged 43. SAWYER—On the 13th inst., Mr. Rowe Sawyer, of Bushr park, Hampton Court, aged 58. STEVENS - On the 13th inst., Mark Stevens, Esq, of Benwell-road, Highbury4.ill-park, N., aged 48. London : Printo3 and. Pablikshod. by WELLIAX ANDREWS' of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TEM SC•rt Odlo3, No 11 Strand, in tho Precinct of she Sgvoy, in the anal AliddloooLl—Tuesclay, Jung le, 1850., Thi Prize It Sol the A Ohs hart's 111 11, ADv, how Able Porra It Pri Pro rr Mite] 1 3 11 A. 0 aion , 6 kl. ; 1 flavir by or tl 8010 1%1 and 13 tray zrro or nn hqod: squal EtOu p . all 4 ( fn r 0 Ir tvo tton s trai l , In ,: / °onfi YG agag. geati inn nellt br ace etre° SP B Poed ss. 6 str vni all IN T I his f 'lo r on o ( Chen cqrls Soli 111),1 e x l colon ferttl 3 Ci.: ~hon iii 4; !. 8111, IV am Alt r9-iE Cl 'earl NaR e et stun ford fo d. Wat, et fr om 11 1.4, T, 11 'Vous CI Year, 21b T ea An 41 8 , troe,