The Sun. — London, England, 1868-06-09 00:00:00

SPIBITWOP THE PUBLIC-JODILNALS. gOVERNMENT AND LOS IO THE CLERKENWELL EXPN. The Times observes that a course not only unusual, but, Wop believe, unprecedented, has been taken in the Court of Queen's Bench. The Lord Chief Justice of England has drstwn the attention of the bar and of the public to a statement in which he expressed his dissent from some of the iloctrines embodied in Mr. Justice Blackburn's charge t o the grand jury last week in the case of Ex-Governor Ey re ,, and denied that the principles contained in that • charge had been approved by all the judges of the Queen's Bench. It will be remembered that when Mr. Justice Blackburn had finished his .exposition of the law in the case of Mr. Eyre, he informed the grand jury that he had taken every opportunity of consulting his brother judges, and he believed himself authorised to declare that they all agreed in the principle. he Intd laid down. The judges of his own court were specially and individually referred to as having been in consultation with him upon the points involved in the charge, and as having authorised him to ex• press their agreement with him. Some surprise was felt at . these statements at the time, not so much at their unusual character, because it was felt that the case was of the I ighest importance, and it was fitting that the statement of the legal principles upon which it depended should rest on the highest authority, but because it was impossible not to see that many of the expressions of the learned judge were irreconcilable with the previous charge of the Lord Chief Justice. This difficulty has been removed by the statement of the Lord Chief'. Justice yesterday, but only to give place to another equally embarrassing. When the Lord Chief Justice had I:ulshed his Communication to the bar, Mr. Justice _Blackburn followed with his statement, describing the conferesices between himself and the other members of the court before he delivered his charge, and the way in which the ta isunderstanding seems to have arisen. It is painful to add.that a comparison of the two statements compels the conclusion that the misapprehension was due to some negligence on both sides, while justice itself is ,discredited by the fact that the grand jury threw .out the bill against Mr. Eyre under the influence of a charge some of 'the leading doctrines of which are now emphatically repudiated by the Lord Chief Justice. The explanation. of the circumstances under which the misapprehension between judges of the Queen's Bench arose does not diminish the regret of the Times. The Lord Chief Justice said he had understood before the trial that Mr. Justice Blackburn did not feel it necessary to discuss the effect of the Jamaica statutes, and as to the actual case of Gordon, he believed, up to the eve of the delivery of his charge, that his learned brother held his apprehension and removal unjustifiable. " I believe," said the Lord Chief Justice, " I am warranted in saying that the statement of the learned judge to the grand jury on this head took the other members of the court as much by surprise as it cer tainly did me." Yet this was part of the law of the case in which Mr. Justice Blackburn claimed at the trial the concurrence of the other judges. His statement yester day was much more guarded. Ho said he had reduced the central proposition of his charge to writing, and submitted it to his colleagues, explaining at the same time briefly but sufficiently the other points. He admits that, being himself charged with the facts and principles of the case as he conceived them, he too hastily inferred a complete coincidence of opinion from the ap proval of this brief abstract. It might be satisfactory, if this writing still exists, to know its exact contents, but if, as one is led to suppose, it amounted to no more than that a colonial governor, acting with judgment and good faith within the scope of his legal powers, could not be made criminally responsible for excesses or errors he may have innocently committed—and it must have been something like this to have secured the assent of the Lord Chief Justice—it will be seen that the point on which the charge turned, the definition of the legal powers of a governor, is left wholly unsettled by it. The result is painful, and, the leading journal adds, creditable to neither party involved in it. If Mr. Justice Blackburn unduly amplified the assent of his colleagues, his colleagues ought to have seen that the narrow prin ciple he stated to them was insufficient to justify that expression of their approval they did authorise him to use. There was great imprudence on all sides, the chief and first being that Sir Colin Blackburn did not commit the whole of his charge to writing before consulting his colleagues, while the end has been a scandal in the administration of our law for a parallel to which we must vainly seek in recent years, perhaps not in recent genera tions. The Post declares that whatever diversity of opinion may exist in respect to the prerogative of the Crown to proclaim martial law, no one can regret that the Lord Chief Justice of England should have taken the opportu nity of expressing his dissent from some of the opinions enunciated by Mr. Justice Blackburn in his recent charge to the grand jury of Middlesex on the prosecution of Mr. Eyre for misdemeanour. Irrespective of the legal merits of the points at issue, it must be conceded that Mr. Justice Blackburn transgressed equally against the canons of good taste and the usages which govern the procedure of the court of which he is a member. Entertaining, as he did, a different opinion from that of the Lord Chief Justice on a point of great constitutional importance, he seems to have seized the opportunity accidentally afforded to him of giving, apparently in the name of the full court, directions in point of law which in effect overruled the expressed opinions of the chief of that court. There may have been a misunderstanding upon his part, but most persons will probably be inclined to share the opinion evi dently entertained by the Lord Chief Justice, that if there was a misunderstanding he must be much more stupid than the world believes him to be. The Daily News lays down that if the deliberate con victions of a majority of the judges are misrepresented by a single judge, the court is bound to take notice of the fact. The Lord Chief Justice therefore only (lid his duty. Our contemporary has always more to dread from the con servatism than from the innovating principles of our judges. It is their duty to uphold authority, but only that authority which is consistent with the law. There are too many instances on record of judges who did not blush to be complimented on their skill in getting obnoxious offenders sentenced to the gallows. Even in our own day we have witnessed a political bias on the bench which ill accords with the due administration of justice. It is, therefore, the more commendable when, as in the present case, the head of the Court of Queen's Bench throws the . weight of his learning and influence into the scale wherein justice has been outweighed by prejudice and passion. Moreover, it is satisfactory to learn that the modern doctrines about martial law are based on a legal quick sand. The Herald greatly regrets that any misunderstanding should have arisen between two judges. The complaint against Mr. Justice Blackburn is, that he erroneously, but ,of course unintentionally, represented himself as speaking in the name of all his colleagues. His lordship was bounc to admit his mistake when they assured him that he had made one ; but if so, it had been occasioned by a mutual misunderstanding of what was said and what was assentet . to. But if no reference to other judges had beer made, the Herald apprehends that it would still have been the duty of the senior puisne to propound his own views of the law, and that any contention or debate upon the bench, while the jury were in court, would have conduced neither to the dignity nor the harmony of the proceedings. In a measure the same ob. jections attach to the scene when the Lord Chief Justice se emphatically stated his own views as to administer something very like a rebuke to his non-assenting col. league. The Eyre case has been fruitful in surprises and novel situations, but we think it is peculiarly unfortunate that to them the Court of Queen's Bench should have con. tributed its quota. Nevertheless, everyone knows that both Sir Alexander Cockburn and Sir Colin Blackburn have acted from the best motives, and with the greatest anxiety to do their duty, nor will any one find fault with thembecause they have failed to hit its exact line. The Standard refrains from any attempt at so invidious a task as that of comparing the relative soundness of the views of the law propounded by these learned and eminent personages, though we confess that we prefer the junior's reading, because it makes the right to proclaim martial law a matter of plain common sense, resting on the natural instinct of self-preservation. That Sir Alexander Cockburn was influenced by none but high and honour able motives in taking a somewhat extraordinary course we are perfectly convinced • but we are by no means so • sure that therein he has acted wisely, or decided well. The Telegraph, notes what good work was done in the House of Commons on Monday, the Scotch Reform Bill having been passed through committee by half- past nine o'clock. Perhaps the purposeless talkers were kept away, or were awed into silence by the idea that the Scotch law of rating is incomprehensible to any man born south of the Tweed. At all events, the House settled down to business with a will, and the speeches were models of brevity. The fact is,' that if not endowed with startling brilliancy, the Scotch members are sound business men, who know that the best way to g et their work d one is to do as much of it out of doors as they can, and to make little fuss in the House itself. So they come to debate in something like a compact body, with well-defined views, and with clear ideas as to what they have power to do. If in this respect the English members would take a lesson from the dull, demure north-countrymen, perhaps they would waste less time on the profitless task of talking in the air. The Sloe has had placed under its notice a pamphlet on the employment of women, from which it culls certain facts, showing conclusively that something must be done for giving employment to the female portion of our popu lation. Our contemporary is struck with shame with one portion of this pamphlet, which sets forth that there are no less than 66,057 men connected with businesses occupied with women's dress and such matters exclusively. It will be new to some of our readers to learn that there are no less than 803 male milliners and dress makers, 881 stay and corsetmakers, and 1,165 washer amen and laundrykeepers in England and Wales. It Is a negative credit to the country that we only find thir teen baby-linen makers. So that not only do we pre vent women from fulfilling occupations suited to them (the persistent opposition of medical men to female ob. stetric practitioners has been never justified to the public by the former), but we positively drive them off their own grounds, displacing them in situations for which men Die no 1749r1A4ACCI titfiliilleY 11414 d be ftm dry-nursing. On Monday a deputation waited upon the Chancellor of he Exchequer, at his official residence in Downing-street, with the view of enforcing upon the Government the claims of those persons whose property was destroyed by he late Fenian outrage, and who had not been recouped rom the fund which was the result of public charity. The Rev. R. MAGUIRE, after alluding to the fact that he present Premier, upon whom a deputation waited in !eference to the same subject some time ago, was not willing to pledge the Government to any decided course >f action until certain legal questions were settled, stated ;hat the total amount collected in behalf of the sufferers 'rom bodily injuries was £lO,OOO, and the flow of charity was stopped by an article which appeared in the Times, ind which pointed out the propriety of refraining from rurther acts of benevolence until it could be seen whether ar not the county or hundred in which the outrage was perpetrated was liable for the occurrence which caused so much loss of life and limb and property. The committee then halted to await the result of an inquiry at law, and the result had been adverse to the sufferers from loss of property ; and now the Government were asked to dis play paternal feeling towards those peaceful subjects of a Crown who had lost their worldly goods by reason of that which was an offence against the State. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : I am to under stand that you have provided for all the cases of bodily injury, and that you now merely require the Government to take into consideration a claim for compensation by those whose property has been destroyed? The Rev. it. MAGUIRE : Yes, sir. The sum of £4,500 nas already b,en expended in relief, and there is now allocated at the bankers' the sum of £5,500 for the purpose of purchasing annuities for those who are permanently injured. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Then I am to understand that you have all that you require, so far as pro viding for the injured people—l mean those injured in hody? The Rev. R. 'MAGUIRE : Yes, sir. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : Then I may tell you that the Government recognises your claim, and an official will be sent down to Clerkenwell to assess the amount of damage done. What is the amount? Mr. WucocKs said it was about £B,OOO. Mr. E. J. TIIO3IPSON said he was sure the committee would be only too glad to co-operate with any appraiser whom the Government might send. The deputation then, through Mr. MAGUIRE, thanked the right hon. gentleman for his courtesy, and withdrew.. THE CHARGE AGAINST MADAME RACHEL. At the Marlborough-street Police-court "Madame Rachel," whose real name appears to be Leverson, appeared before Mr. Knox to answer the charge of obtaining several sums of money from Mrs. Borradaile on the pretence of making her beautiful for ever, and other alleged misrepresentations. Mr. Montague Williams, in opening the case for the com plainant, said that defendant would be charged first with obtaining money by fraud, and secondly for conspiring to do so. The prosecutrix became acquainted with Madame Rachel in 1866, and it was arranged that she should be made beautiful for ever, and after that contract a noble alliance. To carry out such an advantageous agreement of course Mrs. Borradaile was not backward when applied to for some money by the defendant, and in a very short space of time £l,OOO changed hands. Sub sequently the prosecutrix was introduced by Madame Rachel to a gentleman who she said was Lord Ranelagh, but who for private reasons did not wish to be known as Lord Ranelagh, but as Captain William Edwards. Several letters passed between the parties. While the correspon dence was going on Madame Rachel told the lady £1,400 was needed by Lord Ranelagh for volunteering purposes, and that that sum, as soon as she became his wife, would be repaid. Some property was sold out by a solicitor, named Haynes, and various sums were advanced, some times £lO, sometimes £l4, in the belief that she was carry. ing on a matrimonial engagement with the real and not the fictitious Lord Ranelagh. Subsequently, Madame Rachel told the lady, as she was about to become Lady Ranelagh, a certain amount of diamonds would be wanted for the wedding. The prosecutrix ordered diamonds, and advanced £1,400 to Madame Rachel. The di,monds, however, were returned with a forfeit of £l5O for not taking them, Madame Rachel telling Mrs. Borra daile that they would not be wanted, as she would hive the Ratelagh family diamonds. Then there were wedding dresses purchased at the suggestion of Madame Rachel, and such was the credulity of the poor dupe that in a short time certain parties succeeded in stripping her of every shilling she had, the total amount not being less than £4,000. Of this sum, the obtainal of £l,OOO forine.l the basis of the charge of conspiracy. The letters referred to were read, and contained some of the most an an nonsense that it is possible to conceive, and far outdid many of those laughter-provoking missives that are son.et mes read, to the amusement of the public and the n o ification of the parties themselves, in cases of brenc7l of promise. In some of them the writer d s'gna' ed the prosecutrix as "my own darling helove i Mary," and in another she was apostro phised as 11 - s " heart's delight," " adored one," &c. One of these really ridiculous epistles wound up with thr following words :—" I will let you know all when I hear from you, my heart's life. Bear up, my fond one, and I shall be at your feet, those feet that I love, and you may kick your ugly old donkey. Two letters, naughty little pet, and you have not answered one. You are in sorrow about your brother. With fond and devoted love, yours till death,—WlLLlAlt." Mrs. Borradaile was called, and corroborated the statement made by her counsel, after which Lord Ranelagh said : I hope your worship will allow me to make a few remarks. I beg to state on my solemn oath that I know nothing of those letters, and that I never saw or heard of them until now. I say, further, that I did not know Mrs. Borradaile, even by sight, until about two months ago, when I met her at the solicitor's office.—The defendant's advocate said his client feared nothing, and had nothing to fear, as she had a complete answer to the charge.—The magistrate remanded the case, and fixed the bail at two sureties in £l,OOO each. LAW AND POLICE. A POINT OF LAW.—In the Court of Common Pleas the case of the Mayor and others, of Manchester (appel lants) v. Chapman (respondent) was decided. The point in dispute was whether the owner of land at the end of a street in the city of Manchester, which was a cul de sac, and whose land was separated from the street by a dead wall, was liable to contribute to the expenses of paving and sewering the street. The stipendiary magistrate at Man chester, before whom proceedings had been taken by the corporation of Manchester to recover the, defendant's pro portion, decided that the defendant was not liable, and stated this case for the opinion of the court by way of appeal. After hearing the arguments, the court decided thi case in favour of the corporation, holding that the respon• lent was liable. FORGERY BY A WOOL BROKER. -- At the Central Criminal Court, William Whiley, a wool broker, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, for forging an acceptance to a bill of exchange for £2,000, with intent to defraud Messrs. Jacomb, Sons, and Co., wool brokers. After being committed for trial the accused stated that he had received the bill from one of the prose cutors' clerks ; since then he denied that such a statement was correct. HEAVY SENTENCE FOR BIGAMY.—At the same court, Henry Wilshire was tried and convicted of feloniously marrying Mary Susan Leslie, his first wife being alive at the time. The prisoner was the son of a farmer at Hounslow, and received a considerable amount of pro perty from his first wife on his marriage, which, however, .he soon spent in dissipation and riotous living, and behaved in so cruel a manner to his wife that she wai frequently without food. Since contracting that alliance, Wilshire has been tried for forgery and acquitted, Soon after this occurrence he made the acquaintanceshit of Miss Leslie, a lady who is a minor, but on coming of age will be entitled to a large fortune. This lady he mar ried, representing that he would be entitled to a large sum of money at his brother's death ; but things were not allowed to run thus smoothly, for the accused was arreste I when on his wedding tour. - The Recorder, in passing sentence, said that the prisoner knew that Miss Leslie would at a future day become the possessor of £4,000 India Stock, and he had not only obtained possession of her, but had his eye on the property, which he had endeavoured to get by a gross I fraud. The accused was sentenced to five years' penal servitude, to the manifest satisfaction of a crowded court. STEALING A STEAMER.-- At the Glasgow Baillie Court Thomas Gourlay, Hugh Mackay, and a third person, named Murphy, were severally charged with the theft of a small screw steamer from the Kingston Dock. The two first named persons, who were quite boys, seem to have lit a fire on board the vessel and gut the steam up, and subsequently shipped Murphy, who, after sailing down the liver for some time, was put ashore. The two youths found that it was easier to get the steam up than to stay it, and in their endeavours to accomplish the latter feat the vessel ran aground. The prisoners were lucky enough to land on terra firma, and adjourned to a neighbouring hostelry, but on their return the steamer had been sunk by the surge from steamers of larger dimensions. Murphy was discharged, and the other two prisoners were sent to the High Court of Jus larv. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 9, 1868. POPE HONORIUS j3 Alr n PAPAL EV. F ALM- (From the Westminster Gazette.) " That Pope Honorius shared the errors of the Monothelites," says a German divine of repute, "is maintained by very many modern heretics, but by very few Catholics." One of these very few Catholics is Mr. Le Page Renouf, the author of the pamphlet which stands second in our list. F. Schneemann, a German Jesuit, in strik ing contrast to Mr. Renours heated partizan ship, vindicates, in a calm and critical exami nation, Pope Honorius from the charge of having given a decision ex cathedra in favour of the Monothelite heresy, and proves, by indisputable evidence, that he was condemned by the Sixth (Ecumenical Synod, not as being guilty of heresy, but only of having promoted by his mistaken conduct the disastrous spread of the Monothelite errors. The orthodoxy of Honorius, and the purport of the anathema pronounced against him have at various times, and more especially during the Gallican dis pute as to Papal infallibility, been an inex haustible source of controversy. Since 1650, almost every theologian of name, says Dr. Do'linger, has been engaged in this contro versy, so that, within a period of 130 years, more has been written on this ecclesiastico historical question than upon any other subject in 1,500 years. What has been the result of this long controversy ? What judgment has Catholic literature pronounced on Pope Hono rius ? Did Pope Honorius, as Head of the, Church, declare an heretical decision, and was he condemned as a heretic by Councils and Popes ? Such are the questions which F. Schneemann undertakes to examine. His work is divided into four chapters. The first chapter treats historically of the Pontificate of Hono rius I ; the second is devoted to an inquiry into his conduct in regard to the Monothelite disputes ; the third to an elaborate exegetical examination of the two celebrated letters of Pope Honorius to the Patriarch Sergius, and the fourth and concluding chapter explains the real signification of the anathema of the Sixth Synod pronounced against Pope Hono rius. We will briefly examine some of the points discussed in the second and fourth chapters, reserving a more complete notice of this able and interesting work until it appears in an English version, as we understand will shortly be the case. Immediately after his death, says F. Schnee mann, the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius un derwent a most thorough examination. The Monothelites were making the most of his letter to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constanti nople, and by giving a perverted interpreta tion to certain passages in it, endeavoured to make it appear that Honorius had shared and approved of their errors. In order A thoroughly tanassuis to investigate these charges, Abbot was sent to Rome. He made numerous and careful inquiries concerning them among the most eminent and pious members of the Roman clergy concerning these charges against Hono rius. What was the result of this investigation ? Abbot Sohn, to whose great virtue St. Maximus bears testimony, but whom Mr. Renouf con temptuously describes as a lying secretary, de clared that in the letter in question—in the composition of which he was employed by the comp e e i t n en s t po j a u k d in g g e 1 1 o P f o consequently Honorius's m e a nin w on as a the pop of there being but one will in Christ, did not deny the natural will in the humanity of Christ, but only wished to exclude the corruption of the will as it exists in us, the sinful opposition, inasmuch as Christ had assumed, according to the teaching of the Scriptures and of the Fathers, a flesh free from sin. The other members of the Roman clergy on being much pressed by Anastasius on the point in question, showed great indignation at the accusations of the Monothelites, and justified Honorius. These explanations were of such weight as not only completely to convince St. Maximus of the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius, but had also the same effect on the Patriarch Pyrrhus, one of the chief supporters of the heresy. In order fully to appreciate the importance of St. Maximus's testimony, it is but right to in quire what weight ought to be attached to his judgment. Dollinger, says F. Schnee mann, calls him the most learned and the acutest theologian of his time, and a noble fruit on the tree of Grecian philosophy. In truth, continues F. Schneemann, he was a man profoundly versed in patristic learning and most skilful in its application against the Monothelites, whom he opposed with such a zeal as to lay down his life in testimony of the truth. As a friend of the Pope's and of St. Sophronius, Anastasius was perfectly familiar with the controversies of the time. Such, then, was the man who, as often as he speaks of Honorius, defends his orthodoxy, praising him in the highest terms, and even counting him among the opponents of the Eastern heresy. In the same period we find other and not less weighty witnesses in favour of Hono rius. John IV., who about two years after Honorius's death ascended the Papal chair, wrote an Apology of Pope Honoring, ad dressed to the Greek Emperor, in which he declared that he would relate with the most scrupulous fidelity the course of events which were still fresh in everyone's memory. What, then, is the testimony of this Pope ? He de clared that the Monothelite interpretation of the words of Honorius was altogether alien to the mind of this Prince of the Church (penitus alienum, a matte Catholici Patris). Pope John IV. then proceeds to explain at length that Honorius, in the words he made use of, intended to exclude in Christ only the sinful will of corrupt nature, the concu piscence which the apostle calls voluntas carnis. He infers this not only from the whole drift of the arguments made use of by Honorius, but also from the letter of Sergius, which likewise speaks of two contradictory wills. But quite apart, says F. Schneemann, from the his torical and scientific value of this testimony, it is on a special ground entitled to a decisive weight, as being an authentic explanation on the part of a Pope—to whom, as to every prince, such a right belongs—of the decrees of his predecessor. Again, continues our author in another point of view, is this document of Pope John useful for our purpose, for it shows us that the whole of the West, as the Pope had learnt from numerous expressions of opinion, was in a state of great excitement on account of the letters of the Patriarch Pyr rhus, in which he gave currency to the new errors, and, in order to confirm them, perverted from their right sense the words of Honorius. In the East also the faithful entertained a favourable opinion of the orthodoxy of Hono rius. This is shown by a touching event re lated by the Bishop of Dora at the Lateran Council. St. Sophronius, seeing that his op position against the Monothelite heresy, not only produced no fruits, but, on the contrary, only still further embittered his opponents, took the Bishop of Dora, as lie himself relates, to Calvary, and thus adjured him :—" You will have to give an account to Him who on this spot was crucified, and who once again will come to the terrible judgment if you make light of the great danger which the faith is now exposed to. Go, since I am prevented doing so by the invasion of the Saracens, from the East to the West, until you arrive at the foot of the apostolic chair, where the founda tions of the orthodox doctrines are, and do not cease to lay bare to the holy men at Rome the proceedings of the heretics, until the new heresy be completely destroyed." From this account it is evident, remarks F. Schneemann, that St. of itoo pk Sophronius, aeter pi a a l rs t oi l l Eu tsrg although o i n Honorius, on the advice hadhim e controversy, recommendedwas, nevertheless, firmly persuaded iuths' of the ortho doxy of this Pope —nay, regarded him as a prop of the true faith. This testimony is the more important since it was given after the return of his ambassadors from Rome, and he was fully informedwhen) consequently, of the opinion of the Roman Court regarding this controversy. The opinion, then, of his contemporaries, of those most competent to speak, and of those most deeply engaged in the controversy, was undoubtedly in favour of the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius. Such testimony is not lightly to be disposed of. It is of cumulative force. First, we have, as F. Schneemann relates, the evidence that the whole Church, which up to his death had entertained a favourable opinion of the orthodoxy of Honorius, was plunged into a state of excitement when, after his death, it was found that the Monothelites publicly claimed what in his lifetime they had only in secret professed to believe, that the Pope was a supporter of their heresy. Rome was be sieged with inquiries as to the meaning of this pretence. Hereupon witness after wit ness, on whose competency, virtue and know ledge no doubt could be cast, arose bearing testimony in favour of the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius. First came the notary who himself composed the incriminated letter, then the most influential members of the clergy at Rome, who, by their close intercourse with the Pope, could not well be otherwise than familiar with his opinion .on a controversy which engaged every one's attention; then there was his suc cessor, to whom belonged the right of authen tically explaining the decree of his predecessor; in addition, there was St. Sophronius, than whom there was no one whose evidence finder the circumstances could be less suspected, and he, in the most formal and solemn manner, bore testimony to the orthodoxy of Honorius. Then the conduct of the heretics themselves, their trickery and cunning devices, exposed the fallacy of their assertion that they had en joyed the support of Pope Honorius; and, lastly, what better evidence in his behalf could the Pope need than Maximus, the sainted martyr to the cause of orthodoxy, as conspicuous for his learning as for his virtue ? And it was he who triumphantly refuted the false charges brought against Honorius by the Patriarch Pyrrhus, the most audacious of his accusers. So far, then, as contemporary evidence of the most authentic character is concerned, a favourable judgment mast be pronounced on the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius. For want of space we can only briefly refer to the next stage of this controversy, which was comparatively quiet until the Council of Constantinople. Pope Agatho, in his letter to the Emperor Constantine, r epeatedly, and with emphasis, declared that the Popes have never erred against the faith, and that the security for this infallibility was provided by the pro mise given by Christ to Peter. Dellinger does not deny that Pope Agatho said this in spe cial reference to Honorius. Moreover, Pope Agatho, in saying that since the beginning of the Monothelite controversy, the Popes have never omitted to warn the Patriarchs of Con stantinople to abstain, at least by silence, from their heresy, plainly referred to Honorius, for no other Pope would have contented himself with only imposing silence on the teachers of error. This letter of Pope Agatho F. Schnee mann points out as of the highest importance, since it was solemnly approved of by the Sixth (Ecumenical Council, and even Bossuet ac knowledges that this approbation was extended also to the detailed exposition of the infalli bility of the Holy See w hich was contained in that letter. _ _ _ Passing over to the third stage of this trial, which history and science have conducted con cerning the orthodoxy of Honorius, F. Schnee • mann tells us that on account of their multi tude it is impossible for him to take note of all the various writers who, since the Councils of Constance and of Basle, since the outbreak of the Reformation and of the Jansenistical and Gallican controversies, have written on the subject, it is necessary to limit his inquiry to the results of the controversy attested by the most competent judges. In the first instance, then, says F. Schneemann, let us refer to Garmer, whose magnificent literary labours Dollinger acknowledges with praise, and who thus sums up the judgment of Catholic historians and writers of repute:—"ln an earlier epoch many may have considered Honorius as a heretic ; but now, since the matter has been investi gated with greater diligence and care, there are but few—and they, moreover, of suspicious tendencies, or of no great authority—who con demn Honorius as a heretic." As a second authority F. Schneemann cites Papebroch, the most eminent of the Bollandists. " All," he says, "at least who are orthodox deny that any heresy is contained in the letter of Pope Honorius." F. Schneemann says he might quote the testimony as to the result of the elaborate controversy concerning Honorius, of Italian writers, such as Orsi Muzzarelli, Litta, but he prefers, as less open to suspicion in this matter, the Doctors of the Sorbonne and the supporters of the Galilean articles. Tournely who, according to Dr. Dollinger, upheld the honour of French theology in the 18th cen tury, says that " almost all theologians vindi cate Honorius from the error of the Mono thelites." Bishop Languet, the friend of Bos suet and a doctor of the Sorbonne, also attests "to the almost universal agreement of the elder and of modern theologians in the defence of Honorius." The result of historical evidence as shown in the testimony of the vast majority of Catholic writers of learning, eminence, and authority, is to acquit Pope Honorius of heresy. If it be added that in this judgment, pronounced after a controversy which lasted two hundred years, writers of the most opposite schools concur, Ultramontanists and Gallicans, secular and regular clergy of the most diverse shades of opinion, scholastic theologians and historians, and even Jansenists, so certain is it, argues F. Schneemann, that at the least it is not evi dent that Honorius taught anything heretical in his letters. But if he did not teach error, it is acknowledged on all sides that by a mis taken policy in his treatment of the Patriarch Sergius, he gave a great encouragement to the growth of the Monothelite heresy. Had he gone to work, says F. Schneemann, with greater circumspection, the insidious devices of the Monothelite Patriarchs would not have escaped his notice. He was also to blame for his too great attachment to the Greek court , . Ecclesiastical history, as F. Schneemann well remarks, shows by innumerable examples that nothing so dazzles the eyes of princes of the Church as an immoderate fear of break ing with the State. That Honorius did, how ever, withstand the Monothelites, is evident from the fact, which his immediate successor, Pope Agatho, points out, that he imposed silence upon them; but, in enjoining them to abstain from their heresy by silence, he also, for peace sake, imposed silence on the ortho dox. Such a meth o d o f d e aling with the con troversy was not, as F. Schneemann justly remarks, a right or a sufficiently stringent avay of resisting the inroads of an insidious heresy. It showed a want of watchfulness on the part o f H onor i us , for, had he listened to the repre sen t a ti ons o f Sophromus, and op posed Sergius w ith energ y, the spread of the heresy might have been checked. It was his duty as Pope to have done this, and, for this culpable negligence, by which heresy was encouraged, Hon or i us , sa ys F. S hneemann, was condemned by the Sixth (Ecumenical Council, and by Pope Leo, who confirmed the acts of that council. The decrees of a council, as is well known to every Catholic, are only valid in so far as they have received Papal confir mation, but the condemnation of Honorius by the Sixth Council was confirmed by Pope Leo 11., with the express limitation that Honorius had only suffered the pure faith to be defiled. In the document confirming the Council, Leo 11. says, " We pronounce anathema on the in ventors of the new error—that is—on Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyr rhus, Paul, Peter, and, likewise, on Honorius, who did not put his hand to the work of purifying the Apostolic Church by the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but, by profane aban donment, suffered the pure faith to be de filed." The result of F. Selmeemann's investiga tions proves, therefore--first by in4insio pro -7 bability ; secondly, by an almost unanimous historic testimony, and thirdly by a close exe getical examination of his incriminated letters, that Pope Honorius was not guilty of teaching heresy, and that he was not condemned by the Sixth Council and Pope Leo 11. on that account, but for culpable negligence. Iu opposition to this judgment we find the opinions of a very few Catholic writers, and their number would have been less, had it not been for the neces sities of the Gallican dispute. But few as they are, these writers do not recommend themselves by their mode of dealing with this historical question. They have an object in view which interferes with, and in some instances com pletely destroys their critical faculty. This is especially the case with Dr. Dellinger. F. Schneemann shows how inaccurate on occa sions a great Church historian may be, with what carelessness, in order to prove a foregone conclusion, he may mistranslate or misinterpret documents which in reality tell against him. In the continuation of our review of the ques tion of Pope Honorius next week, we will examine what Honorius's modern opponents have to allege against his orthodoxy. In Mr. Renouf's pamphlet we regret to see, that he has taken Dr. Dellinger too implicitly as an autho rity, but that is simply an error of judgment. But what we still more regret is the contemptu ous and intemperate manner in which he puts aside every view or every explanation of facts which does not coincide with his own opinion. Adopting the Monothelite interpretation of Pope Honorius's words, which are susceptible both of an orthodox and of an unorthodox ex planation, he rejects with ineffable contempt, and in a most uncritical spirit, the Catholic interpretation. He dismisses witnesses against his peculiar view with the unqualified epithet of mendacious ; and in this and like unsober fashion arrives at the ponclusion that Honorius was a heretic, and was condemned for heresy by both Pope and Council. In a word, we have seldom met with a more uncritical and uncandid treatment of a grave, historical ques tion, and one which, on account of the weight of testimony which is opposed to his peculiar views, ought at least to have induced Mr. Renouf to have exhibited a little more mo desty. But the question of Papal Infallibility seems to have disturbed the equanimity of his critical faculties, for we find, to our astonishment, that he believes that the theory of Papal infalli bility is utterly destroyed by the alleged heresy of Honorius. In this again he follows in the wake of a few untrustworthy writers, in which category we must place not Dr. Dollino-er the Church historian, but Dr. Bollinger the mini mizer, for between the earlier and the later Dollinfrer in this very question of the ortho doxy of Pope Honorius there is a marked antagonism. In reality the question of Papal infallibility is not at all concerned in this dis pute, for, as F. Schneemann remarks, " Hono rius had no intention of deciding by an ex cathedra' definition the Monothelite dispute, so, even if the orthodoxy of the Pope were supposed capable of being disproved, from such an opinion no argument would follow against Papal infallibility." What Mr. Renouf and the one or two writers, such as Dr. Bollinger, whom he fol lows have to say on this subject, we shall examine in the continuation of our review next week. PROGRESS OF IMPEACHMENT. THE VOTE ON THE ELEVENTH ARTICLE. May 16.—This day, big with the fate of Impeach ment, broke bright and clear on Washington, and in strong contrast to that when Thad. Stevens made his way to the Senate Chamber, formally to im peach the President. The grass around the Capitol had been lately mown, and the air was perfumed with the odour, while the eye was refreshed by the bright green. Nor was the day far spent ere every available space was filled within and without. Ladies, as usual, predominated, and their elaborate toillettes more than ever gave to this the closing scene of the great State trial a theatrical aspect. Even the diplomats and re porters' gallery were crowded, though Mr. Thorn ton, perhaps a nnoyed at being turned out with the crowd on the former occasion, was not there, but Mr. Anthony Throllope was given a place on the floor of the Chamber. A strong force of police, both above and beliiw, within the corri dors and without, warned the unruly that effectual measures had been taken to stop a repetition of the disturbance which had marked the close of Mr. Bingham's speech. Mr. Wade's face was eagerly scanned as he slowly walked to the President's seat. Senator Iloward, one of the three invalid members who had been reposing in the committee room, came slowly in, leaning heavily on the armsof two friends,as did Senator Grime; who was wrapped in blankets, being partially paralysed. Senator Conkling was able to sit up when the vote was taken. At half-past 11 Mr. Wade called the Senate to order, and some routine business occupied the half hour pending the arrival of the Chief Justice. The House Bill admitting the Arkansas members to Congress was reported by the Judiciary Committee. The Democrats announced a minority repprt, and a Republican Senator an amendment, therefore it was laid over. Several messages from the House were received, and at 12 o'clock the Chief Justice, clad in his official 'robes, entered from an ante room, Mr. Wade retiring and Mr. Chase assuming the Preside4's chair. The Chief Justice then called the Impeachment Court to order, and the sergeant-at-arms made the usual proclamation, the Representatives were sent for, and with their Managers crowded to overflowing the Chamber. Every Senator was now in his place to decide the great event. Mr. George H. Williams, of Oregon, moved that the order of taking the vote on the Arti cles be reversed, the eleventh to be taken first, and, although Reverdy Johnson tried to debate it, as it had been pre-arra aged by the Republican caucases, he was silenced, and th e motion was carried. The Democrats had not, however, exhausted their means of opposition, Mr. M'CreerY, of Kentucky, being supported by six Senators when he moved an ad journment of the Court sine die. Finally,it was agreed o n the motion of George F. Edmonds, of Vermont, that the Senate should proceed to vote on the Articles in the order laid down, the eleventh being taken first, by 34 to 10. Then, all being ready, the Chief Justice rose and addressed a few words to the va st audience demanding absolute silence and perfect order, and stating that it would cause infinite regret if it were found necessary, through the violation of the Senate's rules, to remove the persons making a disturbance ; and, turning to the Senators, he added —" In conformity with the order of the Senate, the Chief Justice will now proceed to take the vote upon the eleventh Article, as directed by the rule." The Clerk read the Article quickly, and called the roll in alphabetical order. The first name was that of Senator Anthony, who stood up, and at the same time the Chief Justice rose and put the ques tion. " Mr. Senator Anthony, How say you, is the respondent, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, guilty or not guilty of a high mis demeanour, as charged in this article ?" For a moment the silence was profound, as Mr. Anthony was not only doubtful but by the impeachers thought unsound. He replied, Guilty, and there was a buzz above, ominous to the supporters of the President: Bayard of Delaware was next, then fol lowed Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, &o. Fowler startled the Chamber by the answer in a loud and clear tone, Not Guilty. As it drew on towards the end of the list the name of Edmund G. Ross, of Kansas, came up. The Republican cau cases had counted upon him as certain, and the shock was therefore the greater ►•hen he ceased his intellectual employment of tearing paper into frag ments, and sending them floating like snow flakes upon the floor, and slowly rising, distinctly uttered Not Guilty. Ooe hope still remained. W. G. Van Winkle, of West Virginia, had still to vote, and he was, to say the least, doubtful. As it drew near to him, men held their breath in excited expectation. 3n this Senator now everything hinged. His vote acquitted the President or changed the Government of the Union, and no wonder, therefore, that he looked anxiously round as he rose, and men drew a long breath, as he ealcl Arot Guilty. I - 0 one little incident still remained. Great curiosity was felt as to whether Mr. Ben. Wade would or would not vote. Van Winkle's voice had been decisive for the acquittal of the President, and therefore it was no matter, so far as this Article went, what Mr. Wade said. But it may be that the honourable gentleman, in the little time he had to decide, calculated that the precedent would be against him for the other ten Articles, so, without hesitation, he replied to the question Guilty. Then the Chief Justice arose and said—" On this Article there are 35 Senators who have voted guilty, and 19 Senators who have voted not guilty. The President is therefore acquitted on this Article." The announcement was followed by no expression of feeling; the profoundest silence reigned in the Chamber. Senator Henderson moved to adjourn the Court until the Ist Jul j, by way of testing bow the votes would go if another Article were called up. The motion was lost, the votes being 31 to 20. Finally, it was decided that the Court should adjourn until the 26th May, when the Chief Justice vacated the chair, and the vast audience dispersed. The vote, arranged according to the geographical position of States, was as follows : Fon CONVICTION. New England.—Morrill, of Maine ; Gra„cin and Patter son, of New Hampshire; Morrill and Elmuuds, of Vermont; Sumner and Wilson, of Massachusetts; Spragueand Anthony, of Mods Island; Furry, of Connecticut Middle States.—Morgan and Conkling, of New York; Cattell and Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey ; Came ron, of Pennsylvania ; Wade and Sherman, of Ohio 7 Border States. - Willey, of West Virginia; Drake, of Missouri; Pomeroy, of Kansas 3 Western Stakes.—Morton, of Indiana ; Yates, of Illinois; Chandler and Howard, of Michigan; Howe, of Wisconsin ; Ramsey, of Minnesota ; Harlan, of Iowa; Thayer and Tipton, of Nebraska ... 9 Pacific States.—Colo and Conness, of California; Corbott and Williams, of Oregon ; Nye and Stewart, of Nevada ... 6 Total for conviction 35 FOR ACQUITTAL. New Eng - land.—Fessenden, of Maine (Republican); Dixon, of Connecticut (Democrat) ... ... 2 Middle States.--Buckalew, of Pennsylvania ; Bayard and Saulsbury, of Delaware; Johnson and Vickers, of Maryland (all Democrats). ... ... ... 5 Border States.—Davis and M`Creery, of Kentucky (Democrats) ; Fowler (Republican) and Patterson (Democrat.), of Tennessee; Van Winkle, of West Virginia (Republican) ; Henderson, c.f Missouri (Ito publican); Ross, of Kansas (It Tu'olican) 7 Western States. -Hendricks, of Indiana (Democrat); Doolittle, of Wisconsin (Democrat.); Trumbull, of Illinois (Republican); Grimes, of lowa(Republican); Norton, of Minnesota (Democrat) ..„ 5 Total for acquittal The New York Sun gives this graphic sketch of the scene in the Senate Chamber while the vote was being taken on Saturday, May 16 :—" As soon as the clerk began reading the Article, Mr.liender son left his seat and went to Mr. Ross, and stoop ing down whispered in his ear a long and earnest entreaty. It was a superfluous caution. Mr. Ross's lips were seen to move, and Mr. Henderson, as the clerk finished reading the Article, lifted himself up right quickly, and returned to his seat cheerful and elastic. His man was all right. Then commenced the formal vote. The Chief Justice asked of Senator Anthony, " How say you : is the respondent, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, guilty or not guilty of a high misdemeanour as charged in this Article?" The Senator, rising from his chair, re mained standing during the interrogatory, and answered " Guilty." Down the roll the Chief Jus tice went till Mr. Fessenden's name was reached. The hushed attention with which his vote was received had in it no expectation that he had re laxed his purpose to accomplish the acquittal of the President. " Mr. Fowler, how say you ?" The nerve of the Tennessee Senator gave way. His voice was inaudible. The cry flew through the re porters' gallery, "He has voted Guilty !'—saved in the last moment!" On the floor of the Se nate some one demanded that he should speak louder. With an effort he articulated the words " Not Guilty," and sank into his seat, amid the noise of a movement of the vast audience that threatened an outburst of demonstration. Down the roll to Mr. Ramsay, all voting as it was known they would, and Mr. Henderson tallying and keep ing the record of the defection. " Mr. Ross, how say you : is the respondent, Andrew Johnson, Pre sident of the United States, guilty or not guilty of a high misdemeanour, as charged in this Article?" For the second time was the vast audience hushed into a death-like silence of waiting upon this man's word. 'Tie fate of Impeachment and the iuteres.s of millions hung upon it. He was standing while the Chief Justice spoke—standing with au atti tude of defiant sullenness, again tearing with his nervous fingers a scrap of white paper into tiny pieces. "Not guilty," he in a low tone, and sank into his seat and hung his head. A mur mur of horror and grief pervaded the floor and gal leries of the Senate. It was drowned in the loud and cheerful voice of Mr. Chase calling upon Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, and repeating the formula. Mr. Saulsbury's vote for acquittal made 16 19 were necessary. Messrs. Sherman, Stewart, Sprague, Stunner, Thayer, and Tipton followed with votes of " Guilty." Mr.. Trumbull broke the line. His vote for the President was ex pected, but it produced a painful sensation. This made 17 votes. Mr. Vickers would make 18. There was the Republican Van Winkle from West Virginia. Last Tuesday he was right. He had written an argument to sustain his purpose to vote " guilty." On Thursday night Messrs. Hen derson, Hendricks, and Trumbull spent two hours with him, and induced him to abandon his intention to give that vote on the eleventh Article, and to tear up the written opinion he had prepared. But now the question was, " How will Van Winkle vote ?" It is unnecessary to ask. Iu reply to the Chief Jus tice's formula he answered " Not guilty." The tale of 19 was complete, and the conspiracy within the Republican party to acquit Andrew Johnson was a success. A STRAW ON THE STREAM.—Chief Justice Chase, immediately on resuming his seat after taking the verdict on the Impeachment trial, wrote upon a blank card, and sent it to a gentleman on the floor of the Senate, whom he had more than once assured during the week that the President would be ac quitted. The card bore but a single word, and that, for greater decorum, was in disguise. That word was the exultant use of the French exclama tion of Voila! If this is doubted we can prove it.—. Wilkes's Spirit. BUTLER UNRAVELLING THE SENATORL!L PLOT. General Butler has been earnestly exerting him self in attempting to unravel the great plot which resulted in the acquittal of Andrew Johnson. Wilkes' Spirit " traces the progress of this almost incredible conspiracy among the lawyers of both parties iu the Senate to subvert the Constitution, and to establish in its stead a monarchical system after the British pattern." " We had shown," says the Spirit, " how this movement had, through the sympathies of politics, extended itself across the northern border and finally engrafted itself upon the ambition of the wealthy leaders of the Demo cratic masses of our section. We had directed the attention of the public to this fact before. We had warned them that, strange as it might seem, the seed of monarchy was still alive, even in our own sturdy section ; and as long as four years ago, pointed out Mr. Seward as a monarchist; or as a man, at least, whose disappointed hopes had soured him against Republicanism , :.nd brought him to the deliberate conclusion that the people are incap able of self-government. We found but few to agree with us in these ideas, or to accept our warn ing. It was difficult for a loyal American to comprehend how the detested principle which we had expelled with fire and sword in 1775 could again get a spontaneous footing in the country ; and still more difficult was it to realise that Demo cratic leaders could sympathise with those who pro posed to repudiate free institutions, mach less to strike hands with such traitors in an attempt to monarchise the continent. But this conjunction, though apparently au unnatural one, had become logical by the progress of events. The simplicity of Democracy in the North, like the original sim plicity of the Catholic Church, has become changed with the acquisition of great wealth. Its chieftains, through long possession of the Government and en joyment of the enormotorenums which flow from the vast industry of politics, had acquired an almost royal opulence and power. Through the rigorous machinery of party discipline they had so dragooned the masses as to render them the mere servants of their will ; and they had thus become as much the masters of their political expression and the party revenues, as the slave barons were the masters of the agricultural populations of the South. It is not strange, therefore, when we look at this state of things with thinking eyes that chieftains thus bloated with false authority should at length come to the arrogant conclusion that a people who would obsequiously concede such privileges were unequal to the duty of self-government., and might be ca joled into extending such privileges in perpetuity." Here we find a strong Radical arriving at precisely the same conclusio:i as a Democrat, Atned6e H. Simonin, whose pamphlet lately furnished us with the text for an article. Both the Democrat and the Republican cin'ider the institutions of the United States to be in danger from the ambition of an oli garchical faction, the only difference being who con stitute that faction. The Spirit " warns the Ame rican people that this is a . plot ; that it is a la Nyers' plot ; that it is shared in by all the lawyers of the Senate who voted for the acquittal of Andrew Johnson, and that its deliberate purpose is (and if Johnsen is acquitted its inevitable result must be) the entire subversion of our present form of govern ment for the British Constitution, with an imperial finish. It matters not by what name such a Go vernment is called, or by what title we may wor ship i-s Executive; it will form a despotism of almost an Asian stamp, and its chief officers will be as much of an aristocratic order as the members of the French Corps Legislatif, or of the British Parliament. Neither does it matter whether the acquittal which inaugurates such revolution comes attended with any civil shock or actual bloodshed ; it marks not the less the overthrow of our whole form of government, and must supervene in coun ter-revolution when the people comprehend how they .have been betrayed." Now see what A. 11. Simonin says :—" The thousand oligarchists are about to depose the President under the pretext that he has violated the laws, while it is they who have violated them. It is the be ginning of the execution of the coup d etat so long premeditated ; it is, perhaps, also the beginning of a civil war that will lead us to Mexican anarchy." The Spirit considers it no doubtful sign that there is a universal expression of gratification in all the Courts of Europe at the President's acquittal, the joy at the verdict being liveliest in England. But if there be a conspiracy, Butler is the man to ferret it out. Any one who wants to see a thorough paced despot, an aristocrat of the most bloated de scription, should go to Washington and have a look at Ben. Butler. The committee acting under his auspices employs spies, opens mail-bags, seizes tele gram and private papers, while compelling citizens of all classes to appear at its bar for cross-examina tion. The Managers of the Western Union, bankers and brokers Franklin telegraph lines, were sum moned by an officer despatched from Washington to Baltimore to appear before the investigating committee, and left Baltimore on the 23d May. A lawyer named Woolley, known to have received a large sum shortly before the acquittal on the eleventh Article, has been repeatedly and closely cross-questioned, Butler being under the impression that he acted for the President to corrupt Senators. Mr. Newton, a New York broker, was examined on the 21st. Several telegrams and a private letter sent to him from Washington • were shown to him. " That letter," said Mr. Newton, " was stolen;" ad ding, iu reply to Mr. Butler, " I suppose that you stole it." When asked if he had heard that money had been raised for the President, he said that he had—a committee of New Yorkers be longing to both parties had subscribed $lOO,OOO, the whole to be given to the President if convicted, and half if acquitted. Mr. Cooper, the President's private secretary, was also examined on the 21st May, and testified that au agent professing to act for senator Pomeroy, of Kansas had offered to re % erse the votes of five Radical Senators, who other wise would support Impeachment, for the sum of $40,000, and produced an autograph letter from the Senator in support of what he said. Of course Mr. Pomeroy indignantly denied all knowledge of the plot, which Mr. Cooper on oath had sworn to have been proposed. On the 20th Senator lieu derson was examined, and was asked why he had dined with the Chief Justice, and what took place at the dinner, but Mr. Butler refrained from ques tioning hint as to what the dishes and decanters contained. Mr. Henderson, however, signified that these dishes and decanters had something to do with his dining at Mr. Chase's table, as well as with the thirteen other Senators present on the occasion ; but he declined to retail the private talk of the gueats• He was asked whether he had sought any offices from the President for his friends, and he stated he had not. Before retiring he strongly protested against the proceedings, and occupied the time of the Senate nearly all the next dty by his complaint of the in dignity put on himself and on the assembly. Mr. Boynton testified that Senator Ross weeks before had told him that he intended voting for conviction on the eleventh Article, but the Senator declares that he never saw Boynton, We imagine that the conspiracy has, like most of Mr. Butler's schemes of late, broken down, proving on investigation to be a mare's nest. At the same time grave objection is taken to the proceedings of Mr. Chase, who 133 0 openly used his position to defeat Impeachment, and to forward his own interest as a candidate for the Presidency. The Springfield Republican says, and all will allow it, that it yields as little to political pre. judices as a newspaper well can, that " from the first moment of his elevation it is notorious that the Chief Justice has sought, by every means, and with less than the ordinary modesty of American politi cians, to accomplish this object." [ADVERTlSEMENT.J—Dyspopsia(lndigestion), Constipation, De bility, Consumption, and all nervous, bilious, stomach, and liver complaints in every stage, are only aggravated and accelerated by thugs of every description, but perfectly curable by De Barry's health-restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, as proved by thousands of cases which had been considered hopeless, such as—cough, asthma, also diarrhoea, haemorrhoids, liver cony plaints, flatulency nervousness, biliousness, fevers, sore throats• diphtheria, catarrhs, colds, influenza, noises in the head asl 4 ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, in itability, sleeplessness, acidity, palpitation, heartburn, hesC" ache, debility, dropsy, cramps, spawns, nausea and sickness , even iu pregnancy or at sea, sinking fits, bronchitis, scrofula , tightness of the chest, pains at the pit of the stomach an,d between the shoulders, de. W e q u ote a few : —The P o p e 's health restored 1: 0a Barry's Food. Cure No. 68,413.—" Rome, July 12, 1 , 366.—The health of the Holy Father is excellent, himself since, abaudoulng all other remedies, he has czu fltiod entirely to Du Barry's Revalenta. Arabica Food, of which he consumes a plateful at every meal. It has produced a sur prisingly beneficial effect on his health, and his Holiness cannot praise this excellent food too highly."—From the " Gazette du Midi, July 21 Cure No. 46,270 Mr James Roberts, titrthe' merchant, of Frimley, Surrey, of thirty years' diseased lungs , spitting of blood, liver derangement, and partial deafness; Cure No. 1,771. Lord Stuart de Decies, Lord Lieut. 0 ` Waterford, of many years dyspepsia.—No. 49,832. "Fiftf years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia, nervousnes s ; ~sthma, cough, constipation, flatulency. spasms, sickness an d vomiting.—MariaJoly." Important Caution.—Beware of the maul. unsavoury and more than sloppy imitations to which, witholl• authority, Baron Liebig's name is most audaciously attached In tins at Is. W.; 1 lb., 2s 3d. ; 2 lbs., 4s. 4.1,; b lbs.. 12 lbs., 225.; 21 lbs., 40s.—BARRY Do BARRY and Co., No. I," Regent-street, London; also Fortnum and Mason, 182 Piecadn and at 61, Graceehureh-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, 110, and 2r Oxford-street . 330. Strand ; and all gtocere end chemists. Births. Donmmt l -On the Bth inst., at Champion-hill, the wife of Julius Dormer, Esq., of a daughter. PEPYs : - On the 7th inst., at 7, Norfolk-square, Hyde-part the Hon. Mrs. George Pepys, of a son. POWNALL—On the Bth inst., at St. Margaret's, Islewortli, the wife of Henry Pownall, Esq., of a sou. Marriages. DIPNALL—ITEATH—On the Gth inst., at Shelley Churc h ' Suffolk, James F. I'. Dipnall, Esq., of Beckenham, lieut./ to Elizabeth, younger daughter of the late Thos. lie B t b ' Esq., of Shelley House, Suffolk. SAVAGE—SCOTT—On the Gth inst., at St. Saviour's, Sou th Hampstead, Benjamin, eldest sort of Henry Savage, 1:3 1 . 1 Woodlands, Penn, Staffordshire, to Frances We' t ster, second daughter of the late W. Scott, Esq., of Ci re 6 Tower-streA, London. Deaths. aIIiTENS —Ou the sth inst., at Broxbourne, Ilcrts, D{r• F• BArtens, aged 53. ITILLArtt - On the Gth inst., at 9, St. George's-terrace, sooth Kensington, Richard IlillaM, aged 65. Mum—On the 7th inst., at the Union Hotel, Penzance' James Muir, Esq., of Glasgow, aged 45. Oxfo rd ' the 6th inst., Mr. W. H. Marsh, of 1, street, aged 51. NUGENT—On the sth inst., Henry Frederick Nugent, 6cl"' aged 60. WALKER—On the 6th inst., at 2, Dorset-square, David G. Walker, Esq. nte.VM London : Printed and Put:asked by WILLIAM ANON. — of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The SUN Odir.3o, Dr () 7,trand, in the Precinct of the Savoy , in the Co° 2 ` l ° Miticilooex.7-Tueutay, Awe D I IMS„ 1(1N This c Prize Me It is Pi Sold i the Age: 8 i. Obse n u atfs LI iv ( ti 14 R Abvto orhold • able vvef Forme f Ro - Miss NING MIT JOLT, and j, 93 7 trin, 21. r. R . and 111 , Priv rro rn c, Mitch( SpE, -__ C' 1 / 1 ITAD Eio n , Cl. , ( ....._ Th havir by NI tor tI Solo and Stra ttTir ri ? I r u 00,, kitty aqui all 4 for Rai ttor tra T in 4 etx 58. eta all