The Sun. — London, England, 1868-03-10 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The Times asserts that the Scotch members and Scotch Reform filled the place of makeshifts on Monday night. Like the scene at a theatre which is carried on while the manager is preparing for something wonderful behind, so the Scotch Reform Bill filled up an evening previous to the declaration of Irish policy. It must be acknowledged that the Scotchmen had, as usual, their debate all to them selves. There were only three members not Scotchmen who took any part in the discussion. The three were Mr. Hadfield, Mr. Rearden, and Mr. Darby Griffith, and there are some exceptions which prove a rule. Mr. Hadfield was for throwing out the bill altogether—a course approved by one only of seventeen or eighteen members who fol lowed him. A chorus of Scotchmen protested against the supposition that they were not ready to take what they could get, and even the bold Mr. Baxter did not raise his voice to protest against the gift of additional members as he did when the Scotch Bill was first introduced. If, indeed, any hesitation about the bill existed before Sir James Fergusson spoke, it must have vanished when he explained the views of the Government. According to his statement, the bill consists of two clauses and a series of proposals drawn in blank. The first clause provides that the borough franchise in Scotland shall be the same as that approved for England last session. The second clause deals in the same fashion - with the county franchise. Then comes the proposition that Scotland shall receive a certain number of additional members. Mr. Laing is modest in asking for ten, and no more. Some Scotch members establish by statistics that fifteen would barely satisfy the claims of justice, while Mr. Baillie Cochrane has his own figures, proving that Scotland is entitled to twenty-five. The num ber being quite indeterminate, the way in which the additional seats shall be distributed is also open to the fullest review. It may be altered in any degree the House pleases. We confess this announcement gives us more pleasure than the threatened elasticity in the number of seats to be given to Scotland. Although jealous of any addition to the number of the House, we have never been able to persuade ourselves that 658 is the perfection of wisdom, or that the change from 658 to 665 would con vert a deliberative assembly into a confused mob. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and if a still further increase of the number of Scotch members be contemplated, the necessity of providing for them by the disfranchisement of the smaller English boroughs may prove irresistible. As to the scheme of redistribution proposed by the Ministry, it was so faulty that the liberty of revising it in almost every particular was a necessity. The Lord-Advocate defended some of its provisions, but with a loose ness which did not indicate any confidence in his argument. His chief plea on behalf of the scheme for denuding the Lowland counties of their towns was that something of the same kind had been done in 1832; but -ue House of Commons is persuaded that the supply of wisdom in the world was not exhausted in the days of 'le great Reform. The House was languid, and assented :,*0 the bill, which, with certain amendments, may ripen Limost noiselessly into an Act. Experience has long ago shewn, as the Herald points tut, that no Ministry can force through the House a Reform Bill cut and dried in Downing -street ; and, as 'iuredly, if concessions are to be made in the matter of the Scotch Reform Bill to the common judgment of the House, the question whether this or that constituency is to receive a member involves no principle of right or policy by which a Government is hound to stand or fall. The fear expressed y Mr. Darby Griffith that Government would have q Concede the full extent of the largest demands put forward on behalf of Scotland, or to give the forty additional seats demanded by one eager advocate of Irish claims" implies a total oblivion of the temper of Parliamen as well as of the distinction which every public man ha. daily to draw, and knows how and where to draw, between servile submission and reasonable compromise. Whatever pretensions Scotland may make will have to be established before judges by no means biassed in her favour, and what ever concessions the House may consent to sanction tb country will heartily endorse. As Mr. Laing said, the opinion of the more moderate and unprejudiced portion of the Scottish people is in favour of the bill, with a few not extravagant modifications ; we may add that the opinion of moderate Englishmen is in favour of dealing with Scottish claims in a liberal and generous spirit. The Daily Hews observes that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, fresh from the congratulations of his. brethren of the Grand Jury, took his seat on Monday, and at once proceeded to celebrate his return by a piece of financial legislation. Fortune, however, which accompanied him as far as the table of the House, appears to have thought that for the time she had done enough for her favourite. The Fines and Fees (Ireland) Bill, the second reading of which Mr. Hunt moved, was thrown out without so ranch as a division, As soon as its principle and object were ascer tained it was objected to from all parts of the House—by Mr. Henley and General Dunne, as well as by Mr. Chit= ders and Mr. Cardwell. Thus, when the Speaker declared that the " Noes " had it, Mr. Disraeli gave way, and suf- Slued the first bill of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer to be lost. We have now, the Post observes, the official conhrm3. Lion of our announcement that the Foreign -office agencies <vere about to be abolished. A long statement was pre tilted on the 7th instant to both Houses of Parliament on ;,his troublesome subject ; and it is to be hoped that we 'Than soon have heard the last of a condition of things which has been generally condemned by all impartial persons for more than eighty years, when an inquiry was first instituted respecting this abuse, even then an old one. There is every reason to believe that the agents who still levy tax upon public salaries under the control of the Foreign Office are respectable gentlemen, who have neve. up to this time clearly realised to themselves the objec tionable nature of the profits accruing from this trade. Lord Stanley, therefore, only treated them with the kind ness due to unconscious error when he stated to them that, although he contemplated the abolition of the system, he was willing to receive from the agents any statement which they might wish to make upon the sub ject. They have availed themselves of this opportunity; and it would have been surprising if ordinary men hakl not endeavoured by every possible means to escape the forfeiture of the large gains they have enjoyed. Looking back over some eighty years, the Post shows that the question has been again and again shelved. From Lord Castlereagh until this time the agencies have been allowed to flourish in spite of active reformers. The agents, having official friends to speak for them, were allowed to remain. In 1854 Lord Clarendon stated his willingness to consent to the abolition of the agencies. Lord Malmes bury is reported also to have wished to suppress them. Every one by turns has been prevented carrying his inten tions into effect, and now the old stratagems so often sue. cessful are being again tried to frustrate the purpose d Lord Stanley. The present returns now laid before the public, with the supplement for which we are to be taxed, is merely another attempt to evade and shelve a hues, tion, which has been successfully trifled with for eighty years. The great rowing case has now, says the Telearap4 gone through one stage in the Court of Queen's Bench, and Sadler has gained the advantage of a substantial pre liminary decision. The verdict of the jury, delivered last night, after some deliberation, is, in effect, that Sadler did not receive sufficient notice of the referee's intention to put him out of the race if he would not start. But the questions of law which are reserved pre sent several debatable matters, especially affecting the jurisdiction of referees, and the interpretation to be placed on the recognised rules of boat - racing, It is a moot point whether the referee had power to award - the stakes. The Lord - Chief Justice said that the whole case turned upon the referee's jurisdiction, and that it was a question of law. What the dispute most strikingly illustrates is the laxity of the rules and regulations at present governing watermen's races. The issues raised are altogether novel, and the effect of the ultimate decision of the courts, whatever it may be, should stimulate boating legislators to revise and define their code. Stringent measures should be taken to inflict penal ties on men who will not start when ordered, or start only when a foul "i s certain to ensue. It would be well, also, if the remark o f th e L or d C h i ef Justice on the shameful m isbeh a viour of the steamers produced some, amendment, and if steps were taken to keep them in their proper place, astern. Do not let us have the vices of the turf perpetrated on the water. After Mr. Hardy's explanation and exposition of what the Government knew, the story of the Cl thereerkenwell .explo sioni reads to the Star like a fiction. Is a mi l e householder in this kingdom who w ou ld let his h e blown up, as (..lerkfnwell prison was, with thefull on st se an d Most exact intimation of the expected ev ent i n his e ' posses sion for eight-and-twenty hours beforehand If th e Government had disbelieved the information, as the y naturally might, the blame would have bee n considerabl e but it would have been comparatively small. They be' lieved it thoroughly, however. Without hesitation we pronounce this story unprecedented in the records' of olEcial stupidity. Fortunately, its incidents are so con spicuously and grossly absurd that it IS likely t o d raw upon those concerned a censure more condign than official unintelligence usually receives. If the Standard is to believe the story made public oy the Pays, that the foremost and hitherto most respected French journals are in the pay of foreign Governments, particularly such (governments as those of Signor pattazzi, it will have to be shewn something more convincing than a few desultory unauthenticated excerpts from the post humous papers of an obscure agent, which would prove nothing definite, even if they were all genuine and all true. We believe that the Pays has produced no documents which were not submitted to the Jury of Honour; and it is unreasonable to suppose that they would not have been at the disposal of M. de Kerv6guen when he cast about him so anxiously for corroboration of the charges wade by La Finance. Moreover, the conduct of the Pays in the matter has been marked, we regret to say, by shameless prevarication, that journal one day printing the most unmistakeable insinuations, and the next day denying that it had ever made them. It is possible that more may yet follow ; but we have no hesitation in saying that so far the Pays has done itself as Httle honour by its attempts at discrediting its conten po:aries as the majority in the Corps I.6gisls,tif in refusing to hear M. Havin when it had once 114tened tes AL de Kergesvuen. T.HE SPRING ASSIZES. CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE.—A peculiarly interesting I case was tried before Mr. Justice Mellor at the Manches ter Assizes on Monday. It was an action to recover £lO4, money lent and interest. The plaintiff, an old man upwards of 80 years of age, it appeared, keeps a dairy farm at Blackley, near Manchester, and the defendant is a cattle jobber. The plaintiff's case was that the defen dant bought a cow from him on the 29th May, 1866, for which he paid him £l9 in gold. The defendant then asked him to lend him £lOO for a month, which the plaintiff agreed to do, and went and " fetched brass out o' t' parlour drawer, and all in whole sovereigns." The plaintiff can neither read nor write, and took no memo randum, as he thought the defendant was an honest man; but his daughter Adelaide was present and wrote a memo randum on the almanack opposite the day, the 2nd of June, when she believed the money was lent, that her father had lent Lund, the defendant, £lOO. He had been paid the money a short time before by the Co-operative Society. The cause was tried once before, and a new trial haAdtg been granted on the defendant's application the cause came down again for trial, but shortly before it came on the daughter Adelaide, who was to prove what she had seen and the entry in the almanack, droppeddown dead, and the trial was in consequence postponed. Her handwriting of the memorandum on the almanack was proved. The defendant denied the whole transaction, and said he was in Scotland on the 2nd of June. The plaintiff now said it was the 29th of May. The jury, after a con sultation of about an [hour, returned a verdict for the defendant. INJURY DONE BY NOXIOUS VAPOURS.—A case has jtlo been concluded at Worcester—Jenkins v. the Copper Extracting Company, and Davis and Wife v. the Same-- which were actions for injury done to the houses and gardens, as well as the health, of the plaintiffs, by the noxious vapours emitted by the defendants' works. The plaintiffs stated that their papering in the house had changed colour; the shrubs in the garden would nct grow; and one witness had lost his teeth by the falling in of the gums, caused by the vitiated air. Chemical evidence was called denying the possibility of the vapours emitted doing what was alleged. The jury, however, returned a verdict for the plaintiff ; damages, £l5O. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.-21,000 DAMAGES, —A case of breach of promise of marriage was tried on Monday, before Mr. Justice Hannen, in which the plaintiff was the daughter of a farmer and butcher named Reynolds, and the defendant was manager of his grand mother's farm at Worksop, Notts. From the evidence of plaintiff's father, it:appeared that the defendant was the son of Mr. Topham, of Alfreton. About two years ago his daughter went to Miss Nicholl's school at Worksop. In February 1866, he (plaintiff's father) saw the defendant in Mansfield market. Witness said that he was very angry indeed at defendant's walking out with his daughter. Defendant said what he meant was honourable. After that he came to witness's house and was received as his daughter's lover. When his daughter was ill, defendant used to send almost every morning to inquire about her health. In July 18G7 witness found his daughter was in the family way. Sent for the defendant, and told him he was very much pained at his conduct, telling him if he had taken a pistol and blown her brains out he (witness) should have thought better of him. Witness then asked him if he intended to marry plaintiff, and defendant replied he had no money, and had nowhere to take her. Witness replied that she could remain with him, and defendant then said be should not like his wife to live separate from him. His daughter afterwards came downstairs, and at defendant's request they were left alone. Defendant promised to go down and settle things, but he never called again. Witness afterwards met him, and upon telling him of his promise, defendant said he must refer him to his solicitor. Plaintiff was confined on the 28th September, As regarded defendant's position, he drove a fouP-wheeled carriage, and appeared like a gentleman. His father lived in very good style. Plaintiff would be 18 next July. When plaintiff was in the family way her mother said to defendant, " What trouble you have brought upon us ; I hope you will behave honourably and marry her." He replied that he would. Several other witnesses were examined to prove that the defendant was considered as the lover of the plaintiff, and evidence was adduced that the defendant's grandfather had left him a fortune of £4,000 or £5,000. There was virtually no defence. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff ; damages, £l,OOO. THE LATE DEVON DREAD RIOTS.— At the Exeter Assizes an action was brought by a confectioner at Tor quay against the hundred of Hayton, in which he resided, for damages during the bread riots. Having proved his case and the injury done, the jury returned a verdict for £62 10s. ; and in another case a verdict for £66 2s. 3d. was , returned. 4LLEGED MURDER. Mr. Payne has held an inquest at St. Bartholomew's Hospital respecting the death of a boy named John Hunt. who was only four years old. The evidence went to show that the child was the illegitimate son of a single woman living in D e nmark-court, City. On Wednesday- last the mother went from home for a time, and left the child in the charge of a neighbour. When she r e turned she was told that it had been frightfully scalded and taken to the hospital. She was also informed that her landlady had thrust the child into a pan of boiling. water, and so caused its terrible sufferings. The landlady, a Mrs. Newell, gave evidence. She said that she had lifted the pan, which only contained about three pints of water, from the fire and placed it on the Cror, and that the child had tumbled over it and so scalded itself. Other witnesses chewed that there were some improbabilities about the story of Mrs. Newell. More than one stated that no water was spilt on the floor, and the condition of the child's clothes was such as to indicate that its injuries had been inflicted in some other way than by falling over the pan. Mrs. Newell was heard only the day before to threaten that she would beat the child. The surgeon who examined the child after it had been carried to the hos pital stated that the body had the appearance of having been scalded all round the lower parts. The injuries sus• tained were so severe that the child died on Friday. Those who entered the room immediately after the scalding found that the skin peeled off the lower put of the body, and was hanging in strips from the legs. In the opinion of the surgeon, it was very improbable that such injuries should have been received by the child in the way that Mrs. Newell had described. Neither the hands nor the arms were in any way injured, as they would most likely have been if the child had fallen. He had heard the state ment of Mrs. Newell, to the effect that there were only three pints of water in the pan, but he did not think that quantity of boiling water would Le sufficient to inflict the injuries which the child had suffered. Mrs. Newell protested that she had not injured the child. The coroner thought the inquiry was one which should be adjourned, in order to afford the police an opportunity of taking action. It was therefore adjourned. TRAGIC AFFAIR. An inquest nas been held at Norton on the body of James Hamer, a miner, about 40 years of age, who lost his life while engaged in rifling the fowl-pen of Mr. Thacker, farmer, Brownhills. George Thacker was present, in the custody of the police, having been apprehended on a charge of having wilfully murdered the deceased. Ann Thacker deposed that she was 14 years of age, and lived with her father. On Wednesday night, between nine and ten o'clock, her brothers were in bed, and her sister Jane and herself were sitting downstairs. Her brother George came downstairs, and unhung the gun which was hanging up in the house, at the same time saying, " Some one is at the fowls." He asked for the lantern, but it could not be found, and therefore, at his request, .she took up a lighted candle and. went out after him, followed by her sister. They went to the fowl-house, and her brother several times asked who was there, but got no answer. He then asked her to show the light, and she had no sooner done so than a man sprang out of the pen upon her brother, and the candle was knocked out of her hand by the man. A struggle took place between her brother and the man, and while it was going on she heard the gun go off, and saw a man fall to the ground. He never said " I will shoot you." She did not notice how he carried the gun, but she was quite certain it went off while the struggle was going on. He did not say when he unhung the gun that he would shoot any one who might be there. The fowl-pen was not locked. There were about fifteen fowls in it.—George Thacker, after being cautioned by the coroner, stated that on Wednesday night he heard a noise at the fowl-pen, and got up and went out, as described by his sister. He did not take out the gun with the intention of hurting any one. He loaded it on the preceding Friday, and then put it at half-cock. The man jumped on him, as described by his sister, and while they were struggling' the gun went off, but how he could not tell. When he staggered ba c k a ft er t h e discharge he had the gun i n hi s right hand. The man never spoke, although witness called to him several times to come out. The gun was loaded I , l i e t h e a v e a n r c g e e ,ofa oz.nd ti e o f juryN o. 2 wdeur were k shot.left to This consider completedtheir verdict ; and aft er a s h ort time they found that the "deceased was killed by the gun accidentally going off in the struggle." Mr. G. Thacker will in due course be taken before the magistrates on the charge of having caused the death of Hamer. The Queen has been pleased to present, through Sir William Jenner, to St. Thomas's Hospital, for the use of the patients, a copy of "Leaves from the Journal of Our Life in the Highlands." The presentation of the volume is recorded tterein by her iNlajesty's Royal siga manual. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 10, 1868. DES7I7'UTION IN THE EAST OF LONDON Civilization so interweaves all classes of a commu nity that the effect of a great monetary crisis passes through every rank. As it descends in the scale it creates more bodily suffering till it reaches the labouring men in the shape of famine and utter destitution, with all their train of evils. A capitalist who has £lOO,OOO and loses half, receives a shock ; a yearly income of a thousand pounds reduced to five hundred entails disagreeable retrenchment; the savings of a professional man or a trader swallowed up may cause a pang; but the necessities of life are still left to such persons, and the curtailment is in luxuries alone. The case is very different when a family is wholly deprived of the meankof existence. A monetary crisis generally affects the more wealthy in such a ratio, while the poor it may deprive of bread and thus produce a scene of indescribable misery. At a glance it is difficult to see the con nection between the collapse of OVEREND,:G URNEY, and Co. and the distress in the East-end of Lon don. Many labourers now starving may have derived a pleasurable excitement on that black Friday when the crowds swayed to and fro in the streets and lanes of the golden circle of the area around the Bank of England. Though banks were breaking and financial balloons collapsing, a work ing man fully employed at high wages might well have failed to detect the cloud that had arisen to disturb the serenity of his sky. The first effect is to strike capital, or rather credit, which appears to be capital, and sweep away the flimsy structures that deceive the uninitiated and even those who ought to have known better. The proprietors of failed concerns, absorbed in their own griefs, do not realise the after consequences of the stoppage of the machinery they had set in motion. The poor shareholders appear to them selves to be the only sufferers ; but if some of them would take a tour through the East-end with an agent of one of the societies now organized for re lieving the distress, they would learn who were the chief sufferers. The great financial associations, mainly the tools of contractors, acted as reservoirs into which a section of the public poured their savings, to be baled out for the works which the contractors bad engaged to complete. These con tractors became the large employers of labour, and when the reservoirs burst, they were deprived of the means to continue their operations, the work men were discharged, and the present destitution followed. The chief effect of the joint-stock mania was to create an unhealthy demand for labour, which brought together a plentiful supply. So long as the delusion lasted everything went as merrily as a marriage-bell ; but the greater the proportions it assumed, and the longer it continued, the more disastrous was the ultimate collapse. Nothing generates more misery than a forced and unstable industry. It acts in a similar manner as placing a crowd in a desert and leaving them there unaided, for it locates a community which, when hopelessly committed to the locality and work, finds its means of living cut away. The re sult is among the most deplorable of civiliza tion, involving not only the idle and thriftless, but the most industrious. It is natural for workmen to be attracted by high wages and abundant employ ment, and to settle where these are to be found. They cannot be expected to work out problems which puzzle political economists, and to see the in secure basis on which they rest. They accept their good fortune as the cause of national prosperity, till experience teaches them how ephemeral was the employment, how unreal the prosperity. But— what an experience I Not the mere collapse of a factory nor the discharge of a few hands, nor a re duction of time or wages, but the annihilation of their occupation. In cases of partial distress relief is easy ; but when the whole community is reduced to beggary, a gigantic effort is necessary to save the people from positive starvation. Where all are in volved in a common ruin, the one cannot extend a helping hand to another ; they are tied to the spot, for there are no means of leaving it, and the first effect is to appal those who make it their business to search out cases of distress ; who shrink back be fore the horrible suffering and the hopelessness of adequate relief. These agents tell tales that curdle the blood ; they see sights, the memory of which, accustomed as they are to misery, they carry to their graves. For instance, the father of a family of eight, huddled almost naked in a little room, died; the mother was carried to an hospital, from which, on her recovery, she returned to her lodging to find all her children dead, and every scrap of furniture taken by the landlord for the rent. In the pre sence of so awful a:calamitv, the one overwhelming necessity remains, of feeding the mass during the present pressure, and trusting to PROVIDENCE for the rest. Doubtless it is hard for those who have suf fered severe pecuniary loss by the crisis to be called on to undertake so heavy a burden ; but they should not forget that it is, in a measure, owing to the collapse of their ill-digested schemes that this distress is due. Employers often receive no small meed of praise for the good that results from their enterprises—for the benefit that accrues to hundreds who derive the means of living from the capital they put into motion ; and if they can legitimately take credit for this, they have a right to bear no small portion of the blame, when their enterprises end in such misery and disaster. In this case it was the public who were the employers ; those, who hoped to secure large gains from joint-stock under takings though they not only suffered severe losses from such schemes, but indirectly involved these poor people in the ruin. It is, therefore, the more incumbent on them to come to their aid, and to answer the appeals now made everywhere in Lon ) don for the means, for a brief season, of keeping their fellow -creatures from starvation. A committee is in operation at No. 7, Adam-street, Adelphi, to receive and disburse such contributions, and most of the clergymen in the east of the metropolis are engaged in the work. The commercial collapse has been general over the globe, and the destitution which has now reached the poorer classes is as general. It will be found to be in proportion to the false stimulant applied to industry, which in London reached its climax. America could not fail to be deeply affected ; but the great breadth of waste and fertile lands there quickly insures a remedy. It is, however, the case that the destitu tion in New York is greater than ever known before. When those who have lost hope in Europe seek a refuge in the New World after all, but the money for their passage is gone, they now land in a country where trade is almost as stagnant as here, and starve there only in a lesser degree. The prospect is not encouraging; but good often, we know not how, results. It is through such fiery trials that men are purified and saved, and the visiting clergy report an amazing work of regenera tion now progressing on the scene of so much suffering in the East. The more prosperous classes should be thankful that events have taken this turn, and aid it by means even involving sac rifices ; for such are the seasons of revolution, when it often happens that kingdoms are over thrown and governments subverted.—Anglo-Ame rican l imes. In January transfers of more than $8,000,000 worth of real estate were made in New York city. One hundred valuable lots near the Central park, which had been in the owner's family since 1769, wore sold at fabu lous prices. [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Consumption, and all nervous, bilious, stomach and liver complaints in every stage are only aggravated and accelerated by drugs of every description, but perfectly curable by Du Barry's health-restoring Revalenta Arabica Food. as proved by thousands of cases which had been considered hopeless; such as indigestion (dyspepsia), cough, asthma, con sumption, habitual constipation, diarrhcea, all gastric derange ments, haemorrhoids, liver complaints, flatulency, nervousness, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, diphtheria, catarrhs, colds, in fluenza, noises in the head and ears, rheumatism, gout, impu rities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, palpitation, heartburn, headache, debility, dropsy, cramps, spasms, nausea and sickness, even in pregnancy or at sea, sinking fits, bronchitis, scrofula, tightness of the chest, pains at the pit of the stomach, and between the shoulders, ,te We quote a few.—The Pope's health restored by Du Barry's Food. Cure No 68,413.—" Rome, July 21, 1866.—The health of the Holy Father is excellent, especially since, abandoning all other remedies, he has confined himself entirely to Du Barry's Revalenta, Arabic°. Food, of which he consumes a plateful at every meal. It has pro 'need a surprisingly beneficial effect on his health, and his Holiness cannot praise this excellent food too highly." From the "Gazette du Midi,' July 25. Cure No. 46,270. Mr. James Roberts, timber mer chant, 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 Lieutenant of Waterford, of many years' dyspepsia.—No. 49,832. " Fifty years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation, flatulency, spasms, sickness and vomiting.—Ma Ha, Joly.' Important Caution.—Beware of the many unsavoury and more than sloppy imitations to which, without authority, Baron Liebig's name is most audaciously attached. In tins at Is. 14d.; 1 lb., 2s 9d.; 2 lbs., 48. 6d,; 5 lbs. Ils.; 12 lbs., 225.; 24 lbs., 40s.—BARRY Du BARRY and Co., N 0.77, Regent-street, London; also Fortnum and Mason, 182, Piccadilly; and at 61, Gracechurch-street; 4, Cheapside; 63, 150, and 298, oxford-street; 330, Strand; and all grecers gnd chemists. THE IRISH CHURCH. The Irish Church Establishment is now one of the most prominent topics of the day. The Catholics of England and Ireland, whether they be Conservatives or Whigs in politics, are unanimous in demanding its suppression ; and in this demand they are joined by every Eng lish statesman who professes to be a Liberal, and by many of the most staunch Conserva tives. In 1844, Mr. Disraeli, then one of the most prominent members in the ranks of the Conservatives, now their leader and the Prime Minister of England, when discussing Lord John Russell's motion for a committee of the whole House, "to take into consideration the state of Ireland," expressed his desire to see a public man come forward and say what the Irish question really was. He drew for the contemplation of the House this picture of Ireland. " A dense population in extreme distress, inhabiting an island where there was an Established Church that was not their Church, and a territorial, the richest of whom lived in distant capitals; a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, an alien Church, and, in addition, the weakest executive in the world. " What, then," he asked, " was the duty of an English Minister ? To effect by his policy all the changes that a revolution would do by force. The moment they had a strong execu tive, a just administration, and ecclesiastical equality, they would have order in Ireland." Thus spoke Mr. Disraeli in 1844, and we have now to see whether the Premier will carry out the ideas of the political cadet. Putting aside for the present the starving population, the absentee landlords, and the weak Executive, we will take into consideration the question of the alien Church. We will first glance at its past history, then in greater detail at its pre sent position, and we will afterwards speculate upon its future. The advocates and supporters of the Church by Law Established in Ireland have no reason to be proud of its past ; in fact, if they have any respect for its reputation and honour, they would strive to obliterate its records from the page of history. But that cannot be done. For although every honest Protestant would now be ashamed to approve of, much less to participate in, such events as marked the foun dation of the Irish Protestant Church, its real founders were, on the contrary, proud of their actions, and ever ready to blazon them forth to the world. They boasted of their persecutions and their tyrannies ; but at the same time they lamented that they could not supply the places of the priests with ministers worthy of their name and calling. Sir John Perrot, Lord- Deputy of Ireland, writing to Walsingham, says, " I have apprehended three priests of late—notorious, practising Papists. By their apprehension, and upon the examination of them and some others, there is a great nest of Mass-mongers discovered, with whom I mean to deal shortly, as is meet with such kind of men." The Act of Supremacy was passed by the united efforts of George Browne, Archbishop of Dublin, and Justice Brabagon, and the oath of supremacy was enforced under the paia,of the recusant being adjudged guilty of high treason. The confiscation of all the Church property in the island—the torturing of bishops by toasting their feet " against the fire " in tin boots—the hanging and disembowelling while yet alive of prelates and priests—the confiscation of the broad-lands of the Catholic chiefs of Ulster and the plantations thereon of imported Anglicans, had no better results than ministers " below all degrees of contempt " grasping, avaricious prelates, who thought of nothing but founding families—Christ's Church in part hired out as a drinking tavern, and the Communion Table in the choir, though " used for the administration of the Blessed Sacrament," used also as a primitive ottoman lounger for maids and apprentices." The scandals of the new clergy were even more disgraceful than the persecutions of the executive. Spencer, secretary to the Lord-Deputy, de scribes the condition of the Anglican Church in 1593 in terms which Dr. Mant feels con strained to admit bore but " too close a re semblance to the original." He says :-- " Whatever disorder you see in the Church of England ye may find in Ireland, and many more, namely, gross Simony, greedy covet ousness, fleshly incontinency, careless sloth, and generally all disordered life in the common clergymen. And, besides all these, they have their particular e normities; for all Irish priests which now enjoy Church livings are in a man ner mere laymen, saving that they have taken holy orders; but otherwise they do go and, like laymen, follow all kinds of husbandry and other worldly affairs as other Irishmen do. They neither read the Scriptures nor preach to the people, but baptism they do, for they christen after the Popish fashion. Only they take tythes and offerings, and gather what fruit else they may of their livings, the w hich they convert as badly." Of the bishops he says :-- " Some of them whose dioceses are in remote parts, somewhat out of the world's eye, do not at all bestow the benefices which are in their own donation upon any, but keep them in their own hands, and set their own servants and horseboys to take up the tythes and fruits of them, with the which some of them pur chase great lands, and build fair castles upon the same." It was with the greatest difficulty that the pulpits could be filled at all ; and such as offered themselves were " dissolute men—the scum of English society," who floated over to Ireland as needy adventurers. Even if an Irishman did conform he was excluded from the profits of conformity by the law, which provided that incumbents, preachers, &c., should not only conform to the English religion, but speak the English tongue. Under such men what became of the churches ? Dr. Bramhall, who was afterwards Bishop of Derry and Archbishop of Armagh, was ap pointed on a royal visitation to examine into the condition of the " Church " in Ireland. The details he gives of the state of that insti tution would be amusing if they were not too deplorable to be looked on in a light spirit. He says : • " First of the Fabricks. It is hard to say whether the churches be more ruinous and sordid or the people irreverent even in Dublin, the metropolis of this kingdom and seat of justice. To be g i n th e inquisition where the Reformation will b eg i n , w e find our parochial church converted into the Lord Deputy's stable —a second to a nobleman's dwelling-house-- the choir of a third to a tenis-court, and the vicar the keeper. In Christ's Church, the principal church in Ireland, whither the Lord Deputy and council repair every Sunday, the vaults from one end of the minster to the other are made into tippling rooms for beer, wine and tobacco, demised all to Popish recusants, and by them and others so much frequented in time of divine service, that though there is no danger of blowing up the assembly about their heads, yet there is of poisoning them with the fumes. The table used for the admini stration of the Blessed Sacrament in the midst of the choir made an ordinary seat for maids and apprentices. . . This being the case in Dublin, your lordship will judge what we may expect in th e cou ntry." Of the clergy--the men procured as Gospel preachers by th e r i ng o f the town-bell--he says :—" The inferior sort of ministers are be low all degrees of contempt." The bishops partook of the grasping spirit of Loftus. After detailing their corruptions, he says :—" It is affirmed that by all or some of these means one bishop in the remoter parts of the king dom doth hold three-and-twenty benefices with cure." The bishops were but little better than the parsons. Archbishop Browne made it a capital offence to acknowledge the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. Archbishop Loftus tolerated Dr. O'Hurley, and then illegally put him to death. Jones, who was the persecuting ally, confede rate, and successor of Loftus (this Jones was not only Archbishop of Dublin, but also Lord Chancellor, and twice Chief Justice ; and, as Ware says :—" He laid the foundation of a fair estate !"), and Bulkeley, who headed the musketeers in their raid upon a Catholic chapel, these were the first four ecclesiastical chiefs of the Church Establishment in Ireland. And yet there are men, sensible men, who are not ashamed to become the champions of the edifice built upon such a rotten foundation. The spirit of Loftus still remains, and occa sionally finds vent in English periodicals. In the current number of Blackwood, a writer calmly and coolly says : " As far as we can see, there is only one thing to be done for Ireland ; and that is to hold her with a strong hand till Protestant immigration and Catholic emigration have gradually left the Celtic population in the minority, and so, by degrees, improved the priests off the face of the land." Whilst there are such men in England, we cannot expect that the difficulty will easily be solved ; but if we can only shame them by the history of the past, and the picture of the present, we shall have done something towards remedying the evil.—Westminster Gazette. GLEANINGS FROM THE GERMAN PAPERS. The Archbishop of Munich, the Bishop of Passau, and the Bishop of Augsburg have presented to the King of Bavaria addresses, signed by nearly 72,000 men, in favour of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope. The students of the University of Bonn pro posed a short time ago to hold a meeting in the university in favour of the Pope ; but the Rector, Herr von Sybel, interfered, and for bade the meeting on the ground that such a meeting would be political in its character. As was to be foreseen, the Catholic students were not to be put off by such a pretext; and ac cordingly they despatched a complaint, bearing 400 signatures, of this interference, on insuffi cient grounds, with their rights on the part of the Rector, to the Minister of Public Worship at Berlin. The lists of signatures, numer ous as they are, would have been still much larger had it been permitted to have them signed in the university hall ; as it was they had to be circulated from hand to hand. Under the circumstances everything has been done on the part of the students of Bonn that was possible to identify themselves with the de monstrations which are taking place all over Germany in support of the just cause of the Holy Father. And it is to be hoped, says the Kiilnische Blotter, an influential Catholic paper of Cologne, that the Minister of Public Worship, out of regard to the just demands of the students of Bonn, will cause the Rector to withdraw his uncalled-for prohibition. On the occasion of his silver wedding, the King of Hanover has given 10,000 thalers to the poor of the province, 2,000 of which is devoted to the poor of the city of Hanover itself. A North German paper, commenting on the King of Hanover's speech, which has made no small stir in Prussia, remarks that King George, in his hopes of a restoration, does 'not stand alone among the recently deposed monarchs, for, according to the four nal of Paris, there is circulating in the diplo matic circles of Rome the copy of a letter of the ex-King of Naples to his cousin, the Prin cess Alice of Parma, on the occasion of her marriage with her cousin, the ex-Grand Duke Ferdinand of Tuscany. In this letter King Francis expresses his firm conviction that he will shortly see his young cousin, with her hus band, reinstalled again in the Pitti Palace at Florence. According to the Siidcleutsche Presse, the State library of Paris possesses 1,100,000 volumes, and 80,000 manuscripts ; the St. Genevieve library 155,000 volumes, and 2,000 manuscripts ; the Mazarin library 150,000 volumes, and 4,000 manuscripts ; the Sorbonne 80,000 volumes, and 900 manuscripts ; the library of the Hotel de Ville 65,000 volumes. The number of volumes in the public libraries in France is 6,233,000; in England, 1,772,000 ; in Italy, 4,150,000 ; in Austria, 2,488,000 ; in Prussia, 2,040,000 ; in Russia, 852,000 ; in Bavaria, 1,268,500; in Belgium, 510,000. Taken altogether, the public libraries of Europe possess over twenty millions of volumes. THE NETV HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. The Barry and Pugin controversy has sud denly taken a curious turn. The drawing which the Messrs Barry put forward, conclu sively to prove their fathei 's authorship of the " throne," has not only failed them, but proves in a still more conclusive manner that not Barry but Pugin was the author. For the photograph of the drawing which serves as the frontispiece of Dr. Barry's work bears the initials " A. W. P." The discovery of these initials is due to the familiar eye of Mr. Her bert. In this terrible collapse of the Barry case, the Firm puts forward its boldest brother, known as the "fearlessly asserting" Barry, ever ready with a direct denial of everything that tells against him. Accordingly, Mr. Charles Barry "fearlessly asserts," after care fully re-examining the drawing with a magni fying glass-Ist, that there are no letters at all on the drawing ; 2nd, that they are clearly - W. P." for Prince of Wales. But Mr. Her bert, without the aid of a magnifying glass, recognizes the familiar initials. The editor of the Standard also, after having carefully examined the photograph published by Mr. Barry, declares that there is no possibility of doubt that the letters "A. W. P." are to be found there, and asks Mr. Barry to explain if "W. P." clearly stands for Prince of Wales, what does the " A." stand for ? No doubt Mr. C. Barry, who " fearlessly asserts " with the same breath that there are no letters at all, and that they are clearly "W. P.," will be able, in answer to the question of the Standard, fearlessly to assert what "A." stands for. The discovered initials are, indeed, super fluous proof to those at all familiar with Pug,in's style, for his strongly-marked in dividuality is stamped on every line of the drawing for the " throne." Initials, dates, letters, diaries, are but secondary proofs, the primary proof is that the peculiar and distinctive characteristics of the Houses of Parliament are in harmony with the works and genius of Pugin, but not with the known and avowed productions of Sir Charles Barry. But Mr. Herbert's dis covery of the initials has settled the contro versy. The following is Mr. Herbert's letter addressed to the editor of the Standard:— " Sir,—l would gladly have made a bridge of gold for Mr. Barry, as I do not doubt that he believes that his father made the design from which the photograph in Dr. Barry's pamphlet is taken. I would, however, ask him whether his father was in the habit of inserting in his own designs the initials of Augustus Welby Pugin ? I ask this because I find in the upper part of the profile of the canopy of the throne, between the pinnacles, on the left of the photo graph, the separate initials, "A. W. P.," which my old friend had the habit—l might say the providential habit—of dropping into all kinds of places in furniture, hangings, metalwork, (35c. This is not a question of " imagination." Every person who will use his eyes may see (even i n th e sma ll ph o t ogra ph) th e initials, and all the world may judge whether I have given testimony in matters entirely unknown to me.—l am, sir, your faithful servant, J. R. HERBERT.-7, G rove-end-place, St. John's Wood-road, F e b. 3."—Westm iaster Gazette. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills and Ointment.— In angry or indolent sores, and all skin diseases originat ing in impure or weak blood or depraved secretions, the jcint agency of Holloway's pills and ointment is perfectly irresistible. It is of little consequence how long these disorders may have lasted, or how sluggish, or obstinate , or malignant they may seem, the daily application of the ointment to the parts affected and a course of these match less pills will most certainly effect a cure, not temporary or superficial, but complete and permanent. Both the ointment and pills are composed of rare balsams, unmixed with mercury or any other deleterious substance. They are, accordingly, as mild and safe as they are powerful and effiacious. THE GREAT STANTON CASE. On the publication of the correspondence on this case, the President,after due considerati on , forwarded to the House the following reply and rejoinder : Executive Mansion, Feb. 10, 1868.—General, —The extraordinary character of your letter of the 3d instant would seem to preclude any reply on my part ; but the manner in which publicity has been given to the correspondence of which that letter forms a part, and the grave questions which are in volved, induce me to take this mode of giving, as a proper sequel to the communications which have passed between us, the statement of the five mem bers of the Cabinet who were present on the occa sion of our conversation on the 14th ultimo. Copies of the letters which they have addressed to me are accordingly herewith enclosed. You speak of my letter of the 31st ultimo as a reiteration of the many gross misrepresentations contained in cer tain newspaper articles, and reassert the correct ness of the statements contained in your commu nication of the 28th ultimo, adding, and here I give your own words, " anything in yours in reply to the contrary notwithstanding." When a contro versy upon matters of fact escapes the point to which this has been brought, further assertion or denial between the immediate parties should cease, especially where upon either side it loses the cha racter of a respectful discussion, which is required by the relations in which the parties stand to each other, and degenerates in tone and temper. In such a case, if there is nothing to rely upon but the op posing statements, conclusions must be drawn from the statements alone, and from whatever intrinsic probabilities they afford in favour or against either party. I should not shrink from this :test in the controversy, but fortunately it is not left to this test alone. There were five Cabinet officers present at the conversation, the detail of which, in my letter of the 28th ultimo, you allow yourself to say contains " many gross misrepresentations." These gentlemen heard that conversation, and have read my statement. They speak for themselves ; and I have the proof, without the word of comment. I deem it proper' before con cluding this communication to notice some of the statements contained in your letter. You say that a performance of the promise alleged to have been made by you to the President " would have involved a resistance to law and an inconsistency with the whole history of my connection with the suspension of Mr. Stanton." You then state that you had fears the President would, on the removal of Mr. Stanton, appoint some one in his place who would embarrass the army in carrying out the reconstruc tion acts, and add—" It was to prevent such an ap pointment that I accepted the office of the Secretary of War, ad interim, and not for the purpose of enabling you to get rid of Mr. Stanton by my withholding it from him in opposition to law, or, not doing so myself, surrendering it to one who would, as the statement and assumptions in your communication plainly indicate, be sought." First of all, you here admit that from the very beginning of what you term " the whole history" of your connection with Mr. Stantoa's suspension you intended to circumvent the Pre sident. It was to carry out that intention that you accepted the appointment. This was in your mind at the time of your acceptance. It was not then in obedience to the order of your superior, 3$ has been heretofore supposed, that you assumed the duties of the office. You knew it was the Pre sident's purpose to prevent Mr. Stanton from re suming the office of Secretary of War, and you in tended to defeat that purpose. You accepted the office, not in the interest of the President, but of Mr. Stanton. If this purpose, so entertained by you, had beenconfiuedtoyourself—if, when accept ing this office, you had done so with a mental re servation to frustrate the President, it would have been a tacit deception. In the ethics of some per sons such a course is allowable. But you cannot stand upon that questionable ground. The " his tory" of your connection w ith th a t t ransac ti on , as written by yourself, places yourself in a diffe rent predicament, and shows that you not only concealed your design from the President, but in duced him to suppose that you would carry out his purpose to keep Mr. Stanton out of office by retaining it yourself, after an attempted resto ration by the Senate, so as to require Mr. Stanton to establish his right by judicial decision. f now give that part of this " history," as written by yourself in your letter of the 28th ultimo :—" Some time after I assumed the duties of Secretary of War, ad in terim, the President asked me my views as to the course Mr. Stanton would have to pursue in case the Senate should not concur in his suspension, to obtain possession of his office. My reply was, in substance, that Mr. Stanton would have to appeal to the Courts to reinstate him, illustrating my posi tion by citing the ground I had taken in the case of the Baltimore Police Commissioners." Now, at that time, as you admit in your letter of the 3d inst., you held the office for the very object of defeating an appeal to the courts. In that letter you say that in occupying the office one motive was to prevent the President from appointing some other person who would retain possession, and thus make judi cial proceedings necessary. You know the President was unwilling to trust the office with any one who would not, by holding it, compel Mr. Stanton to resort to the Courts. You perfectly understood that in this interview, " some time" after you accepted the office, the President, not contented with your silence, desired an expression of your views, and you answered him that Mr. Stanton " would have to appeal to the courts." If the President had re posed confidence before he knew your views, and that confidence had been violated, it might have been said _he made a mistake ; but a violation of confidence reposed after that conversation was no mistake of his, nor of yours. It is the fact only that needs be stated, that at the date of this con versation you did not intend to hold the office with the purpose of forcing Mr. Stanton into court, but did hold it then and had accepted it to prevent that course from being carried out. In other words, you said to the President, " that this is the proper course," and you said to yourself, " I have ac cepted the office, and now hold it, to defeat that course." The excuse you make—a subsequent paragraph of that letter of the 28th ultimo—that afterwards you changed your views as to what would be a proper course, has nothing to do with the point now under consideration. The point is that before you ' changed your views, you had secretly determined to do the very thing which at last you did—surrender the office to Mr. Stanton. You may have changed your views as to the law, but you certainly did not change your views as to the course you had marked out for yourself from the beginning. I will only notice one more statement in your letter of the 3d instant—that the perform ance of the promises which, it is alleged, were made by you would have involved you in the resistance of law. I know of no statute that would have been violated had you, carrying out your promises in good faith, tendered your resignation when you concluded not to be a party in any legal proceedings. You add—" I am in a measure confirmed in this con clusion by your recent orders directing me to dis obey orders from the Secretary of War, my superior and your subordinate, without having counter manded his authority to issue the orders I am to disobey." On the 24th ultimo you addressed a note to the President requesting in writing an order given to you verbally five days before, to disregard orders from Mr. Stanton as Secretary of War until you " know from the President himself that they were his orders." On the 29th, in compliance with your request, I did give you instructions in writing " not to obey any orders from the War Depart ment assumed to be issued by the direction of the President, unless such order is known by the General commanding the armies of the United States to have been authorized by the Execu tive." There are some orders which a Secretary of War may issue without the authority of the Pre sident ; there are others which he issues simply as the agent of the President, and which purports to be " by direction" of the President. For such orders the President is responsible, and he should therefore know and understand what they are be fore giving such " directions." Mr. Stanton states, in his letter of the 4th inst. which accompanies the published correspondence, that he " has had no correspondence with the President since 12th Aug. last ;" and he further says that since he resumed the duties of the office he has continued to discharge them " without any personal or written communi cation with the President ;" and he adds, "No orders have been issued from this department in the name,of the President with my knowledge, and I have received no orders from him." It thus seems that Mr. Stanton now discharges the duties of the War Department without any referenCe to the President, and without using his name. My order to you had only reference to orders " assumed to be issued by direction of the President." It would appear from Mr. Stanton's letter that you have re ceived no such orders from him. However, in your note to the President of the 30th ult., in which you acknowledge the receipt of the written order of the 29th, you say that you have been informed by Mr. Stanton that he has not received any order limiting his authority to issue orders to the army according to the practice of the Department, and state that " while this authority to the War Department is not countermanded, it will be satisfactory evidence to me that any orders issued from the War Depart ment by direction of the President are authorized by the Executive." The President issues an order to you to obey no order from the War Department, purporting to be made " by the direction of the President," until you have referred it to him for his approval. You reply that you have received the President's order, and will not obey it, but will obey an order purporting to be given by his direction if it comes from the War Department. You will not obey the direct order of the Pre sident, but will obey his indirect order. If, as you say, there has been a practice in the War Department to issue orders in the name of tne Pre sident without his direction, does not the precise order you have requested and have received change the practice as to the General of the army ? Could not the President countermand any such commands issued to you from the War Depart ment? If you should receive an order from the War Department, issued in the name of the Pre sident, to do a special act, and an order from the President directly not to do the act, is there a doubt which you ought to obey ? You answer the question when you say to the President, in your letter of the 3d instant, the Secret ary of War is " my superior and your subordinate," and yet you refuse obedience to the superior out of deference to the subordinate. Without further comment upon the subordinate attitude you have assumed, I am at a loss to know how you can release yourself from obedience to the orders of the President, who is made by the Constitution Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy, and is, therefore, the official superior as well of the general of the army as of the Secretary of War. ANDREW JOHNSON. The documents referred to were the answers from the five. Cabinet Ministers present at the conversa tion alluded to, sent by request of the President, who called for their versions of the affair. These were Messrs. Welles, M'Culloeh, Randall, Brown ing, and Seward. The Secretary of State's ver sion was so characteristic of that gentleman that it elicited much laughter when read. The corre spondence closed with the following reply from Grant :—" His Excellency A. Johnson, President of the United States. Sir,—l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 10th inst., accompanied by statements of five Cabinet Ministers, of their recollection of what oc curred in Cabinet meeting on the 14th of Janu ary. Without admitting anything in these where they differ from anything heretofore stated by me, I propose to notice only that portion of your communication wherein I am charged with in subordination. I think it will be plain to the reader of my letter of the 30th of January that I did not prepare to disobey any legal order of the President distinctly given, but only gave an inter pretation of what would be regarded as satisfactory evidence of the President's sanction to orders com municated by the Secretary of War. I will say here that your letter of the 10th instant contains the first intimation I have had that you did not accept that interpretation. Now for reasons for giving that interpretation. It was clear to me be fore my letter of January 30th was written that I, the person having more public business to trans act with the Secretary of War than any other of the President's subordinates, was the only one who had been instructed to disregard the authority of Mr. Stanton where his autho rity was denied as agent of the President. On the 27th of January I received a letter from the Secretary of War (copy herewith) directing me to furnish escort to public treasure from the Rio Grande to New Orleans, &c., at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury to him. I also send two other enclosures showing recognition of Mr. Stan ton as Secietary of War by both the Secretary of the - Treasury and the Postmaster-General, in all of which cases the Secretary of War had to call upon me to make the orders requested, or give the infor mation desired, and where his authority to do so is derived in my view as agent of the President. With an order so clearly ambiguous as that of the Presi dent here referred to, it was my duty to inform the President of my interpretation of it and to abide by that interpretation until I receivedfurther orders. Disclaiming any intention now or heretofore of dis obeying any legal order of the President distinctly commutiicated--•I remain, very respectfully, your obedient servant, " U. S. GRANT, General." EMIGRATION OF MINERS TO AMERICA.—On ac count of the great depression which still exists in the mining and iron trade, a considerable number of miners in the Dunfermline district left last week for America, acting on the suggestion of Mr. M'Donald, president of the Miners' Association. The mining trade is giving no evidence of improvement, and many men are still unem ployed. The markets are dull, and coal continues to ac cumulate at the pitheads. One colliery in the district hag a stock on hand of about 36,000 tons. The Cunard steamer Palmyra, which arrived at New York on the 18th ultimo, reports that on the 12th ult., at 6 p.m., off Sable Island, she observed a ship on fire. Captain Watson at once bore down and steamed round her. Rockets and bluelights were sent up, but were not responded to. She appeared to bo an American built ship of about 1,500 tons ; had jibbooms standing, with jibe carefully furled, and was burning below deck. After hover" ing around her for some time, and finding none o f the crow, he left her at 8.15 p.m. Captain Billinge, of the steamship William Penn, also passed the burning vessel. He said the light could be seen for 70 miles. On approach ing ho found her to be an American ship of about 1,00 0 tons, the position being about 90 miles from Sable Island. The flames shot out of the hold with great fury. As it was night rockets were fired by them at intervals, as e n evidence to the crew that there were friends present readl to relieve them. There was no response, and a boat WO lowered with the second mate in command, who pulled round the burning wreck. This examination led the oral ( of the boat to surmise—and this suspicion is endorsed 11 the captain that the vessel was laden with petroleun i f and had been on fire at least two days. She was a blaet" hulled ship, and the fire had commenced in her hold, the name on her stern being totally obliterated. It being fan' weather, with the sea fortunately smooth, Capt. Billings believes that the crew of the ship had, as soon as they covered that she was on fire, taken to their boats, al" unless rescued by some passing vessel not yet heard fr° ll3 ' had sailed for and reached Sable Island. Births. FIRTH- On the 9th inst., at Vineyard House, Richninildi Surrey, the wife of A. W. Firth, of a son. GANDY—On the 7th inst., at Roefield, Clitheroe, the W if° of Captain Henry Gandy, of a son. SAwrouts -On the Bth inst., at 19, Hertford-street, liar fair, the Hon. Mrs. Alfred Sartoris, of a son. Marriages. BUTCHER—STROI:D- On the 7th inst., at St. Jude's, ton, Frederick William Butcher, of Upper Clapton, Clifford's-inn, to Harriet Anne, only daughter of J• Stroud, of Mil imay-park. KEELING—BARDONS—On the 7th lust., at Christ Lid „r -- e t li o St. Marylebone, W. E. Keeling, Esq., of Devizes' Frances Anne, second daughter of P. S. Bardons,l3' of Milton-street, Dorset-square. Deaths. d DUNLOP—On the 7th, inst., Miss Isabella Dualop, cave House, Mahon, Yorkshire, aged 92. Drak e ' DRAKE.—On the 4th inst., at Aldershot, John G. - Esq., 4th Dragoon Guards, aged 55. JO• FERRIS On the ath inst., at Westbourne-park, VTln* Ferris, Esq. aged 61. , MOWLEM—On the Bth inst., at Purbeck House, SvralroScis John Mowlem, Esq., senior partner in the firm of J Mowlum and Co., Westminster, aged 80. eri road, RAWLINGS—On the 7th inst., at Finebley Nee Hampstead, Daniel Rawlings , Esq., late of Chip _....! aged - 70. AND London : Printed and Published by WILLIA.II , 1 12 t of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TRH SON 00100, N° , v of Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the 0 ‘ 413 Iliddlon.—Tuesday, March 10, NM A Lona L Tj 114 &c. CENT on p.m. I ~~- Prize Sold the A 4 Ohs( han's Tiny picasi: ana t IV (from. Bisl Mss] Full the G] The in the at Mit St. Jal o'cloc Spe King, B' CA Ree, Right Opel Adn A' This harin g by 11Me for the Solo C F' 1 1;1Mb( or unf hoods Ility.— Bquart SOU; PR all des for ou' Rump tions c transt( hug g, SPi speedi s s. 6d stamp: all oh This hours, for 6( Chem TI curls I Sold a and 14 GR colour fectly ()herd IF moves withou 61; s, , pn sallow. sta napE all Chi IF seven remain stamp s and all -,.....____ Jusi UG . Ing th born, ] -_____ mi Beripii( spring; the tai tale b colour ever I extract snppor ranteei teeth cation. 1 1Eau DU