The Sun. — London, England, 1868-06-29 00:00:00

SPIRLI: OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The Timea observes that the House of Lords is doing its little work neatly and cleanly. In the many trials which await us all we could not wish for any task that could be knocked off more pleasantly. The spirited competition for the lead on this occasion reminds one of the crowd of applicants for a place as light porter, or as supernumerary in a household where there is nothing to do. The House aims at nothing, as a late Primate said of a certain class of preachers, and is likely to hit it. It is quite possible, we fear more than possible, that the next Parliament may attach more significance to it than is intended ; but the intention is to seize a golden opportu nity to do nothing. The House generally concedes that something ought to be done about the Church in Ireland, and, indeed, deplores that something has not been done long ago ; but it maintains that this particular proposition is the worst of many actual or conceivable, that this is the worst time for it, that these are the worst circmnstauces, that the authors are the worst authors, and that, even Enpposing all these conditions were never so unexception ale, there remains the fatal objection that the proposed prsOliminary, the bill before the House, goes further than the contemplated.measure, and is a suspension of vitality without any pledge for its resumption. Mr. Gladstone was not the man to do this, we are told ; Lord Russell was not the man to do this work. The present is not the time. It might have been done two years ago, or while Lord Palmerston was Minister. It might have been done before the Fenian business. It might have been done when nobody was asking for anything, and when the proposal would have been sponta neous and gracious. Never was there such a bad time as Crow. If the choice, indeed, lay between this bill and this time and none at all, we possess Lord Grey's assurance that he would support Mr. Gladstone ; but, fortunately, he has in sight a better measure, better days, and better circumstances, and he can confidently ask us to wait for them. Meanwhile, he advises us, in the kindest spirit possible, to clear the ground by rejecting this particular measure. The sum total of this line of argument, and the utmost value of the decision made upon it, on the most favourable estimate, is that there is a great deal to be said against the manner, the time, the persons, and the circum stances, But it is easy to see how this argument works, and what a pitfall it inevitably leads to. It leads to the perilous conclusion that a multitude of particulars, quite out of the essence of a measure, may be urged against it from time to time with fatal efficacy, however necessary the measure may be, and however certain to be carried eventually. The Hemld, noting that it is not always the winning side, that has the best of the argument, declares that it is satis factory to know that in the division on the Suspensor) Bill the majority, however large, will scarcely more that balance the debating power and argumentative superiority exhibited in its behalf. The Opposition and their bill have been as thoroughly defeated in debate as they will be in the division. Mr. Gladstone's allies in the Uppei House were bound to establish at least three propositions in favour of the measure—that it is both expedient and lawful to disestablish the Irish Church, that it will accom plish the end for which it is proposed by conciliating the disaffected, and that the bill is so framed as to give effect to the resolutions upon which it is based without inflicting any additional and needless injury upon a Church already sufficiently wronged and humiliated. Neither of these propositions have been grappled with, much less esta -I,li3lled. Whatever, the Standard remarks, may be said or thought respecting the discussion in the house of Commons, only the most violent and blinded partisanship will venture tc deny that—thus far at least —the advantage in the nous, of Lords, whether in eloquence, in force of argument, or in weight of knowledge, character, and experience, has been altogether on the side of the defenders of the Irish Church. Against the vigorous and cogent speech of Lord Derby, dealing at every sentence blows that told with crushing effect either upon the measure itself ox the character and motives of its authors— against the severe criticism and statesmanlike investigation of their proposals by Lord Grey, whose known and fearlessly avowed opinions gave tenfold weight to his censures of a echeme against which he certainly felt no party or personal prejudice—against the demonstration supplied by the practical knowledge of the bishops of the intolerable mis• chiefs which the bill must work, and the utter impossibility of carrying on the duties and maintaining the discipline of the Church after it should have become law—againsl the stinging sarcasm and the close reasoning of Lord Salisbury's speech—one of the best and most forcible ever delivered by one of the most formidable of living debaters —what had the advocates of Mr. Gladstone's Su3pensory Bill to oppose ? A few trite, threadbare, and trans parent sophisms, which have been repeated and refuted usque ad nauseam ; a quantity of statistics which either prove nothing, or prove that which not one of those who uttered them would dream of admitting, and which, if admitted, must reduce men like Lord Dufferin to ruin ; an assertion, more courageous than correct, of au overwhelming public opinion in their favour ; some stale taunts about the Reform Act of last year, which can neither persuade nor provoke anybody ; and a form of menace much more likely to drive the peers into a vigorous assertion of their own independence, and to rouse them to act upon their own convictions, than to induce them to submit to the dictation of a factious majority in a moribund House of Commons. The Post, commenting upon the regulations issued fox the Army Reserve, declares that a step in the right direc tion has been taken in proposing to enrol in that forco men of the regular army who have served but two-thirds of their first term ; but the step is a very small one—so small indeed as hardly to illustrate the principle of a short term of regular service and a long term in the reserve, by which recruiting would be rendered easy, the army effi cient, and the reserve be readily maintained at any required strength. And yet our rulers, ignoring the prac tical evidences of failure, the teaching of recent events, and the conclusions arrived at by the overwhelming majority of all earnest thinkers and writers on these subjects, cling to exploded theories, and leave us, as usual, last in the great race. The Herald says that it is in a great measure their own Foreign Cattle Market Bill that, under false pretences, the Liberals are attempting to defeat. It was not origi nally a Government scheme ; its author is Mr. Ayrton, a Eadiaal member, and its object is to secure cheapness, not to diminish it. The existing Administra tion upon acceding to office found a calamitous epidemic ravaging the herds, and by a decisive course of action checked and even extirpated it. But then the question arose, how far, although the cattle plague had died out in England, it still prevailed on the Continent, and what future precautions would be effectual for preventing the permanent deterioration of our own stock. The highest practical authorities were consulted, and their opinion, almost unanimous, was that the home and foreign breeds should be brought to different markets. The bill was, therefore, brought in as guarantee against the recurrence of the rinderpest which had been incurred through a con tagion confessedly imported from beyond the sea, which so lately imposed a severe sacrifice upon the country. In its weekly article on "Trade and Finance," the Daily ,ens takes up the relations between the directors of joint-stock companies and their shareholders. It recalls the time when blind trustfulness reigned ou the one hand, and extravagance on the other. Shareholders allowed the directors to do as they liked. Directors abused the confi dence placed in them. Things now, however, are altered. Latterly sh ireholders seem to have aroused from the apathy which has allowed their property to be brought to the brink of ruin. The art of browbeating a proprietary by the " board," valuable in its day, has now become inef fective. In isolated instances it may yet be tried, but the experiment commands such little chance of success that it is not likely to prevail henceforward. On the other hand, as one extreme begets another, there is a strong proba bility that shareholders will be inclined to push their power too far. It is an old remark that no virtue is more difficult to practise than moderation. The maxim that moderation is strength unquestionably applies to the posi tion of the greater part of shareholders of the present day. 'lie Te.ltvraph says it is impossible for any one who has, car a o lly studied the subject of our telegraphic com munications with India to be satisfied with it. Fur the greater security of our Indian possessions, and for the right development of our commercial intercourse with them. ttvo things are essentially requisite : first, that we should hare an unbroken line of telegraph from England to Bombay ; secondly, that it should be as much as possible within our own hands. The existing line does not comply with the first of these conditions ; the proposed route through Prussia and :Russia does not fulfil the second. An independent communication by means of a submarine cable in the Red Sea is a State necessity. One company is alrealy in existence to perfect the Mediterranean section of the tele graphic system, and another associated body of capi talists will probably come before the public, in a few days or weeks at most, to invite co-operation in laying a cable from Sup:: to Ku ren eanwhile Sir Stafferd Xorthcute personally refuses t ai i a:,y such plan. I•h3 English pro mpters of a strictly :British lino of telegraph complain that, what , neutral iii Prnfe;sion, he is one-sided in practice. For at the very time that he throws a deluge of official cold water on the Red Sea scheme, he helps the Russo- Prussian company, by adding to the existing Indian lines between Teheran and Kurrachee, thus in fact cmnpleting the last link of the chain which commences in North Germany. No doubt the Secretary of State may reply that he is justified in utilising the means within his power so far as he can, and that he is bound to avail hithself of all the advantages proffered. If by the help of the Siemens line India is brought nearer to England, the whole empire is a gainer ; and a Minister who should decline to accept the opportunity would neglect leis duty. The fact, however, remains that the successful completion of the telegraph through Russia would still leave the necessity of a submarine wire as urgent as before. The Red Sea undertaking will be discouraged by the stimulus which the action of the Indian authorities has giv,n to the operations of the Berlin con tractors. The Tel (graph hopes, therefore, that, while we avail ourselves of the Russian line from self-interest, Policy will even yet dictate the speedy accomplishment of the alternative communication, under strictly British control, by the Red :.-3ea. THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION AT NORWICH. The arrangiments for the forthcoming meeting in August of the British Association for the Advancement of Science are rapidly advancing. The Drill Hall, where the opening address and other lectures will be delivered, is veil re ported of as to acoustic properties, while the old St. Andrew's Hall will in itself be an attraction for the soirees. The reception rooms offer the unusual conve liences of separate rooms for business correspondence an& for ladies. To geologists the crags of Norfolk and Suffolk promise ample scope both for work in section-room and for outdoor practice under good local guidance. Archmolo gists will find peculiar attractions, or distractions perhaps, in the fact of the International Prehistoric Society holding one of its meetings in this country at the same time and place. The Economic Section is to be offered papers on the state of agriculture by Mr. C. S. Read, M.P., and on the condition of labourers by Mr. Corrance, M.P., Canon Girdlestone, and others; while the drainage of the fens and Norfolk rivers is to be treated of by Sir Willoughby Jones and Mr. Harding, of Lynn. The fisheries of the coast, and pheasant breeding or over-feeding, will stir up questions of national im portance in other directions. The number of foreigners already promises to be unusually large. Padre Secchi, from Rome, and Baron Maedler, from Dorpath, will be greeted by the English Adams, Challis, Glaisher, and others. Physiologists will not be sorry to see their section animated by Dr. Broca, from Paris, perhaps also by Dr. Vogt, from Geneva ; and geographers will find old friends in Valdemar Schmidt, from Denmark, and Vienbery, from Pesth. Other Swiss, Dutch, French, and Gilman names are being daily added to the claims on Norwich hos pitality. LAW AND POLICE. Tug LATE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY.—In Vice-Chan• cellor Malins's court an application was made to restrain an action to recover'2l.oo,ooo in respect of the non-delivery of certain plant and machinery for the manufacture of Enfield rifles originally ordered of the plaintiffs, who were military machinists, for the use of the Confederate Government. The defendant,'General Ripley, had for merly been an officer in the Confederate army. The plaintiffs stated that they were now willing to deliver to whoever were entitled.—The Vice-Chancellor directed the motion to stand over till next seal. CAN LOCOMOTIVES BE LEGALLY USED ON TRAMWAYS ? Ile case of Jones v. the Festinog Tramway Com pany, which was heard before the Court of Queen's Bench, raised this important point. An action had been brought before the county court judge for damages sustained from some sparks from a locomotive used on the defendants' tramway. The tramway had been made under the provisions of a special Act of Parliament passed in the year 1832. There was nothing in the Act to shew that it was intended to use locomotive engines, and, in fact, none had been used until about three years ago. The county court judge gave judgment, for the defendants, holding that they were authorised to use locomotive engines, and that they had used all proper precautions to prevent any aceicluit resulting from the escape of sparks. Mr. 3 ustice Blackburn said that it was a very nice point of law ; no imputation whatever could be made against the learned county court judge, but he was of opinion that the Act did not authorise the use of locomotive engines upon the tramway. If, therefore, the defendants chose t o use them they must do so at their peril, and most Lear the consequences caused by the use of such engines, although they might have taken all reasonable and proper precautions. ACTIONS AGAINST RAILWAY COMPANIES. — In the Com. mon Pleas an action was brought by Mr. Strong, a vocalist, against the London and South-Western Railway Company fur compensation on account of injuries sus tained. The tegEgence was admitted, and consequently' the only question was as to damages. The plaintiff was injured in his back, his eye was cut, and the nervous system generally shaken. The plaintiff of late has fol lowed the musical profession, and sung under the name of Chesterton. He had organised a musical company, and had been making a professional tour and giving aoncerts in the principal towns in Hampshire and Dorchester at the time of the accident. During the ensuing Lent a tour had been arranged for Wales, as, according to one of the witnesses, " Wales was a Dissenting country, and not so straight-laced as some of the English counties," and a tour in that part would be more likely to be successful than in England during Lent. The jury gave £250 damages. In the same court Mrs. Davis brought an action against the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company. The plaintiff said that as she was getting out at Norwood the train went on, she fell, and was injured. The defendants, on the contrary, said that the plaintiff got out while the train was moving, and so was hurt by reason of her own negligence. The jury gave £3O damages. CHARGE OF SWINDLING BY ADVERTISEMENTS.- Henry Wallis, general agent, of Bognor, was brought before the Chichester magistrates on the charge of obtaining a large number of postage stamps under false pretences, by means of advertising in the London newspapers. Watkis advertised under the head " Wanted " the following :-- " Lodge Keeper. Wages 30s. A married man. Wanted small family not objected to—good character indispensable. —Enclose stamp to B. C., post office, Chichester ;" ane " A Respectable Female or Married Couple Wanted, by widower, to superintend his house and one child ; good homo and salary to respectable people.—Enclose stamp to G. 11., post office, Emsworth." These and other similar advertisements brought innumerable applications, moro than a thousand letters with a stamp enclosed in each having been received at the post office. When the pri , soner's premises were searched a large number of letters and " original" testimonials were found. The prisoner was committed for trial. RISK ALLAH AND THE " TELEGRAPR."—An application was made at judges' chambers, on Saturday, on behalf of the defendants, the proprietors of the Daily Telegraph, to be at liberty to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff into court, and thereupon to stay any further proceedings in this action. Mr. Lewis, in support of the application, stated that the defendants had been served with an attachment !rom the Lord Mayor's Court, in an action against Risk Allah, at the suit of the City Offices Company (Limited), fora arse amount. The defendants had also received notice of an assignment of the damages in favour of Messrs. Kimber and Ellis, Mrs. Waagan, and Mr. Churchill, and it was feared that other claimants upon Risk Allah would take proceedings by attachment. The defendants, there fore, for their own protection, sought the assistance of the court. Mr. Justice Smith said he thought that the Daily Telegraph should be relieved in the form they asked ; and, although the plaintiff might be as satisfied to leave the money in the defendants' hands as to have it paid into court, yet they desired to pay it into court, and he should grant the application, leaving the City Offices Company, Risk Allah, and any other claimant to contest their respective rights to the fund ; and he thereupon made the following order :—That upon payment of the sum of ENO, the amount of the verdict, herewith into court, and the costs of the action, when taxed, to the plaintiff's attorney, all further proceedings in this action be stayed as against the defendants, without prejudice to, the attachment : and I do order that either of the above parties shall be at liberty to apply as to the moneys in court. In 1851, 23 per cent. of the population of Ireland could speak Irish ; in 1861 only 19 per cent. could speak it; of these, 164,000 persons could speak Irish only. TRADES' SOCIETIES. —Sir Thomas Powell Buxton has given notice that on Tuesday, the 7th of July, he will introduce a bill to repeal and amend the laws relating to trade societies and the combinations of workmen. Her Majesty the Queen, with their Royal High iesses Princesses Louise and Beatrice, Print Leopold, tud Prince and Princess Louis of Hesse, attended by the ladies and gentlemen of the Court, is expected to leave Windsor Castle on the 7th of July, for Osborne, when the royal circle will be joined by Prince and Princess Chris tian of Schleswig-Holstein. Her Majesty, it is under stood, contemplates a visit to Germany after leaving Osborne, and will be accompanied by several members of the Royal Family. The inauguration of the Palmerston Diemorial at Rotnsey will take place on Tuesday, July 21. A special sm ice will take place, and a sermon be preached by the Bishop of London. At the termination of the service a procession will be re-formed and proceed to the market place, when the statue will be uncovered, and an inau gural address be delivered by one of the colleagues of the ,late lamented statesman. The park and grounds at Broadlands will be thrown open, and the band of the Royal Nlafinq Artillery will perform there. In the evening the vicar will illuminate the abbey. FATAL ACCIDENT TO AN OMNIBUS CONDUCTOR.— An inquest has been held at Bethnal-green, relative to the death of Joseph Shepherd, aged 55 years, who lost his life through a collision between two omnibuses. The deceased was an omnibus conductor, and was on the monkey-hoard, in Shoreditch, talking to one of the passengers, when an accident in front caused the driver to pull up suddenly ; another omnibus, following close behind, had not time to stop, and the pole was driven with force against deceased's arm and side. He received dreadful internal injuries from which he died. No blame seemed to attach to the drivers of either ft' e omnibuses. The jury returned a verdict tint de ova d d ed from 'njuries received from an omnibus pt e accidentally rtr g THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JUNE 29, 1868. POPE HONORIUS AND PAPAL 11YFALLI BILI7Y. (From the Westminster Gazette.) The Pope, according to the teaching of the innumerable theologians who defend Papal infallibility, is infallible when he issues, in virtue of the plenitude of the power which he has received, not from the Church, but from God, doctrinal decisions for the instruc tion of the Church; that is to say, when he teaches the faithful, not simply proposing to them something to be believed, but binding them by the obedience which, as members of the Church, they owe to its Head, to follow him as their Teacher, and to subject themselves to his ordinance. He speaks not in the name of the Church, but as the Vice- gerent of Christ, and, consequently, his deci sions infallibly bind the Church. Otherwise, were he bound to consult the Church or a Council beforehand, he would not be possessed of the supreme plenitude of power, but be • subject to an authority higher and more com plete than his own. Such a subjection, how ever, is contrary, as is well-known, to the decisions of the Councils of Lyons and of Flo rence. Applying these tests to the case of Honorius, it is evident, from the character and tone of his letters to Sergius, that Honorius did not intend them as a doctrinal decision, binding the faithful to hold that there was only one energy in Christ ; indeed, nowhere in his letter did he even say that there was only one energy; on the contrary, he deprecated the use of the expression. If, on the other hand, he depre cated. also the expression " two energies," he did not say or mean that the truth indicated by this expression should not be held ; on the contrary, in. his second letter, he clearly pointed it out in a passage which throws the clearest light on the real meaning of Honorius. He does not by a single word designate the expression " two energies" as false, but only as vain, and, under the circumstances, as pre judicial. It must be remembered, also, that though the truth was old the form of words used to express it was new and unfamiliar, and had not received the special stamp of orthodoxy which they have since acquired. Pope Honorius, moreover, does not address Sergius as if he were speaking in the plenitude of his power, his sole object being by mediation, exhortation and advice, to put an end to the con troversy. Had Honorius laid it down as a rule of faith that there was only " one energy " in Christ, or designated the expression one energy " as exclusively true, and " two energies " as false, and promulgated this de cision for the instruction of the Church, then only could it be said that Pope Honorius had j taught -heresy ex cathedra. Hence, as F. Schneemann in the conclusion of his treatise I observes, the Honorius question, in a dogmatic point of view ; has not the importance which at first sight it might seem to have. The Gal licans, Dr. Dellinger and Mr. Renouf, have vainly endeavoured, when they wished to lessen the Papal authority, to turn this vexed question to account. They have failed, in spite of genius, learning, and the investiga tion of original sources, to prove either that Honorius taught heresy ex cathedra, or held heretical views. As to Mr. Renouf, in spite of his profound investigations, he has not pro duced a single particle of fresh or original evidence, or raised one objection against Hono rius, which- had not been previously raised and refuted. Neither has he succeeded at all in establishing a theory of his own, for he has nowhere clearly avowed himself a Gallican, in place of the Ultramontane system of theo logy which he holds to be untenable. What, if we may be allowed to ask without offending his susceptibilities, is Mr. Renouf's system of theology ? In the teeth of the decisions of the Councils of Lyons and of Florence ; in opposition to the judgment of a long catena of theologians, and in spite of the condemned theories of Gallicanism, to deny now Papal infallibility, and start a new theory on Church Govern ment in direct antagonism to the mind of the Church of the present day, is a piece of audacity which borders on the absurd — we had almost said upon the insane. What weight would any rational man attach to the scattered opinions of individual theologians or Church historians against the decisions of Councils, the acts of Popes, and the all but unanimous judgment, ever since the question has been seriously discussed, of the greatest theologians in favour of Papal infallibility ? On the gradual discussion and fuller recog nition in the Church of Papal infallibility, F. Schneemann makes the following just remarks, in striking contrast to Mr. Renouf's narrow views and captious tone :—" The same thing happened," he says, "in regard to the doc trine of Papal infallibility as occurred in regard to other points in theology, and in poli tics, in poetry, in rhetoric, and grammar. In the first instance it was practically acted on, and only later was it critically and scien tifically examined. Hence it was that, although in the middle ages many discussions are to be found on the infallibility of the Pope, this doctrine, as well as many others touching the Primacy, was never thoroughly or systemati cally set forth ;" and in the same way, adds F. Schneemann, " the orthbdoxy of Honorius, which stands in special contact with the question of infallibility, was left unnoticed." The results of such an investigation, however, when it did take place, compltely overthrew, as Mr. Renouf is the first to acknowledge, the Gallican theory ; but with the overthrow of the Gallican theories, and the disproof of the alleged heresy of Honorius, which was the main argument in support of his view, were it not wise in Mr. Renouf to reconsider the position he had taken up, under the conviction which we hope he can no longer entertain, that Popes had been condemned for teaching heresy to the Church. However mischievous and however offensive to Catholic loyalty Mr. Renouf's views may be, his theory is vague and indefinite in comparison with the theory of infallibility which F. Ryder has introduced to the notice of English Catho lics. It is not necessary here to recount the controversy between F. Ryder and Dr. Ward, which is now familiar to every educated Catholic interested in the intellectual life and in the movement of religious thought pecu liar to our times. Theology at this moment in Protestant England is occupying in a sir gular manner the minds of men ; contro versies touching the deepest questions of reli gion are carried on with an eagerness and a boldness which, if at times irreverent, show at least an impatience of doubt and a thirst for truth, infinitely superior to the listlessness and apathy of indifferentism. One of the points most in dispute in our times, is the relation between the will of God and the mind of man. Is man bound to submit his reason to she revelations of God is the question that comes uppermost now? It seems to us that this question, in a modified form, lies at the bottom of the controversy between F. Ryder and Dr. Ward. It is painful for the human mind to surrender at discretion, it is com paratively easy to submit iu silence, generously and loyally, but it is a test of real suhjection to accept, with an interior assent, what is pro posed, not by our own minds, but by an authority external to ourselves. Such a sub jection, however, can only be claimed from us by an infallible authority. Intellectual rebel liousness resents a claim, which as Catholics, we are bound to acknowledge and submit to. If we, however, partake in any degree of the intellectual rebelliousness, which is the characteristic evil of our age, what is more natural than to endeavour, if we must as Catholics accept an infallible authority, to circumscribe its extent as much as possible, and limit its exercise to such rare and remote occasions as will make the burden compara tively tolerable. This is in effect what F. Ryder's theory does ; it is a Catholic form of intellectual rebelliousness. We are speaking quite in the abstract, judging simply from re sultsquite apart from motives, for we have no ground whatsoever to impute evil motives to the author of the thccr..y. But the theory itself seems as if it we - 1 e conceived with the object of reconciling, as far as possible, the intellectual Liberalism of the day with the positive re quirements of Catholic theology. For this pur pose Catholic theology is pared down to its rind, and Liberalism is beseeched by various forms of adulation, abuse of extremes being not the least, to accept the sacrifice. Of course the projector of the theory did not intend to go below the lowest limits allowed in the Church, for otherwise he would have defeated his own purpose. But the question which Dr. Ward has raised and pressed on the attention of Catholics is :—Have not the lawful limits of Catholic teaching been completely over stepped by the new theory proposed by F. Ryder to the Catholics of England ? The im portance of this question, in its many aspects, cannot be overrated. It trenches upon an essential dogma of the Catholic faith, the infallible authority of the Church ; it affects the intellectual life of Catholics in relation to science and to modern thought ; it has an im portant bearing on the duty they owe to the Holy See in the practical concerns of life. This new theory is not proposed, as that by Mr. Renouf, as a display of pedantic antiqua rianism, or as an occasion for the exhibition of ill-tempered disloyalty, but it is a theory pregnant with mischievous life, it is akin to the spirit of the age, taking up into itself, not the full current of intellectual rebelliousness, but the small side streams which, flowing through devious courses, ultimately lead on to the great sea of open rebellion. How this question as to whether the theory proposed by F. Ryder does not exceed the limits of Catholic teaching in grave points affecting the Catholic doctrine of the Infalli bility of the Church is answered, our readers may see, in Dr. Ward's last pamphlet. In " A Brief Summary on the Recent Controversy on Infallibility," Dr. Ward puts in a con densed and forcible form those opinions ad vanced by F. Ryder, which he holds to be " gravely censurable." Hitherto, throughout the controversy, he has mainly confined himself to a thorough investigation of the principle of the Church's infallibility, and to a defence of the various propositions which he has ad vanced,. showing that they were based on that principle, and were the necessary,consequences of its exercise, and that to deny these pro- positions would, as a necessary logical conse quence, lead to the denial of the. Church's infallibility altogether. So intent was he on defending and explaining the. Church's doc trine on the infallible authority bestowed by God on St. Peter's successors, and so self= forgetful, that he quietly allowed himself to be placed, as it were, in a pillory, to be pelted at by every puny whipster who could cast a stone. His antagonists endeavoured at first to make the Catholic public believe that Dr. Ward was recklessly disturbing the peace of consciences by introducing new-fangled ideas and extravagant pretensions concerning the infallibility of the Church. In the present " Brief Summary," Dr. Ward has turned the tables on his opponents, and has effectually shown that the theory invented by F. Ryder in limitation of the Church's infallibility is not only novel, but can only be upheld on essen tially antiCa.tholic principles. It was evidently owing to his untenable position that F. Ryder, under the pressure of adverse arguments, had so constantly to shift his ground, without, how ever, as Dr. Ward complains, distinctly dis avowing all the points which, in the course of the controversy, he has " tacitly and unosten tatiously surrendered." In his " Brief Sum mary," Dr. Ward takes as his starting point the two data on which he and F. Ryder are agreed. " We are agreed," he says, " (1) that whatever infallibility is possessed by Pope and bishops collectively, is possessed by the Pontiff speaking ex cathedra ; we are agreed also (2) that he speaks infallibly whenever he imposes on Catholics the obligation of abso lute interior assent. And now, passing from our points of agreement to our points of diffe rence, in my first section I will state, as drily and briefly as r can, what appear to me your gravest errors, and my reasons for thinking them thus grave. You will understand me all through as admitting most fully (what I expressly stated in my second letter) how high and loyal are many of your Catholic instincts ;' and as recognizing most vividly that your opinions are indefinitely higher than what I must consider the legitimate outcome of your principles." Dr. Ward then proceeds to state the gravest errors in F. Ryder's theory, and to give his reasons for holding these errors to be so grave. We regret want of space forbids us to give these reasons at fall ; they are too long for extract, and too condensed to be abridged. The foundation of F. Ryder's theory Dr. Ward holds to be his view as to the authority of uncondemned theologians. " You hold," says Dr. Ward, " in fact, that whatever tenet any Catholic theologian may have advocated in any of his works without being actually cen sured, that tenet may be embraced by us without our violating any grave obligation imposed on all Catholics. Your argument for so strange an opinion is simply this : 'lf all Catholics were under a grave obligation of repudiating some given tenet, that tenet would be gravely censurable ; but if it were gravely censurable, it would certainly have been censured.' " But Dr. Ward shows that opinions may be truly censurable which have even been actu ally brought before the notice of authority, and yet escaped censure, and he brings forward as evidence of this fact that a certain work of Bossuet . was not condemned, not that it did not deserve condemnation, but (1) that Bos suet had done great services to the Church, and (2) that (after all) greater mischief might probably be done by condemning it than let ting it alone. The fundamental error of F. Ryder's thesis is then " the inference which you continually draw, for the permissibleness of some tenet, from the Church's non-pro scription of some individual theologian who has advocated it." And continues Dr. Ward, " Your second grave error (as I consider it) has been to so great an extent criticized in treating your first, that but few additional words are necessary. I refer of course to your opinion—(l) that certain doctrinal censures pronounced by the Church are not infallibly deserVed ; and (2) that there is no grave obli gation incumbent on all Catholics, of accept ing as infallible any censures milder than that of heretical.' As I have just pointed out, both in the Unigenitus ' and in the Auctorem Fidei ' this obligation is most unequivocally expressed. I must repeat, indeed, what I said in my recent letter, that only by a happy inconsistency do you account the Church infal lible in her very definitions of faith. Her pos session of that infallibility (as you say your self) is only proved by her claim of absolute assent for those definitions. But she cannot possibly claim that assent in more unmistak able terms, than in those of the Auctorem Fidel' which you would explain away. I should add, that the obligation on which I am insisting has been recognized by every moral theologian, without exception, who has treated the matter at all. You admit this in your letter, p. 36. I had mentioned in October the names of Viva, S. Aiphonsus, Bouvier, Scavini ; you candidly add on your own ac count, that even authors such as La Croix and Reuter, who . . . contemplate the . hold ing that a condemned proposition may be true, still condemn of grave sin such as hold the injustice of its condemnation.' " Dr. Ward then proceeds to another point: —" 3. I must next refer to your language concerning the Mirari vos,' and concerning certain capi tula of Trent. In both these cases the Church claims from 'Catholics an absolute interior assent, in language so unequivocal and peremp tory that nothing can possibly be more so. In both these cases you persistently deny that all Catholics are under any such obligation. Your position (as I have more than once said) has no legitimate issue, short of denying the Church's infallibility altogether. 4. I have maintained confidently throughout, that the Church can infallibly condemn errors which are injurious to the Faith ; even though they do not contradict any portion of the Deposit, either in themselves or by legitimate argu mentative consequence. In other words — since the condemnation of an error as such is she affirmation of its contradictory—l main ain that the Church can infallibly teach cer tain doctrines, which neither are immediately revealed, nor yet follow by legitimate argu mentative consequence from revealed dogmata. As I must return to this question more than once, it will be a great convenience if I give once for all a particular appellation to these two classes. I will call those doctrines then deducible,' which may be inferred from the deposit by legitimate argumentative conse quence ; and I will call those protective ' which are not deducible indeed from the De- posit, but which are regarded by the Church as importantly serviceable for its protection. You deny her infallibility in teaching these protective ' doctrines ; and I cannot but con sider your denial a very serious error. I may add that while there is, perhaps, no point'on which you so earnestly insist as on this, there is none (as will immediately be seen) on which you are so curiously inconsistent." Dr. Ward then states his reasons against F. Ryder's opinion, and then proceeds thus : " 5. My last instance, under this head of serious errors, shall be a view, which not only you have not explicitly stated, but which, if expli citly stated, I fully believe you would repu diate. Yet it is implied, I think, in various portions of your letter, and particularly in your argument on the ,vos ' and the Sylla bus. You often reason as though the Supreme Pontiff were tied by God's law to certain particular forms and .methods of exercising his office as Universal Teacher. For myself, on the contrary, I maintain, as a vital Catholic truth, that he is entirely free in this respect ; that he may teach the Church either by writing or by word of mouth ; either in this way or that ; in one age of the Church he may con demn the chief errors of his age ' by dogmatic Bulls ; at another time by Encyclicals, Allocutions, and other Apostolic Letters.' In a thousand different ways he may sufficiently indicate his intention of t3aching the Church ; but whenever and however he may do so, the Holy Ghost interposes to preserve his instruc tions from even the slightest intermixture of error. See what I have urged in my Second Letter, from p. 30 to p. 35. Still, as I have said, I by no means allege that you explicitly advocate this last opinion which I have been combating. As to the others, however, which I have recited in this section, they are indu bitably yours. And, speaking with profoundest deference to ecclesiastical authority, I submit that they are gravely censurable in themselves, and that they threaten the Faith with grievous peril. I am obliged to add that the very circumstance, which I have ever been for ward in testifying, of your Catholic tone and demeanour towards the Church, makes your position incomparably more perilous to her in terests than it would otherwise be. Your membership of an illustrious Congregation adds increased peril. Men expect that funda mentally anti-Catholic principles shall have been advocated in the Chronicle or the Home and Foreign Review; and they find such principles there &pressed, in the peculiar style of those very unattractive and happily defunct periodicals. But when a Philippine endorses those principles—exhibiting the while a generally loyal and reverential tone towards the Church—they begin to think that the poison cannot be so very virulent after all." Dr. Ward then proceeds to axa,me in the second section other points at issue between himself and F. Ryder, and in the third section replies to F. Ryder's answers concerning the Syllabus. The fourth section is on doctrinal expositions, and treats of F. Ryder's change of ground and his misapprehension of Dr. Ward's thesis. Dr. Ward regrets that F. Ryder has not explained whether or not he is as yet convinced that the " Mirari Vos " and . St. Leo's Dogmatic Letter are ex cathedra. For these discussions and generally for the reasons which Dr. Ward, in a condensed and forcible manner brings forward in support of his judgment of F. Ryder's theory, we must refer our readers to the pamphlet itself. At page 19, Dr. Ward thus sums up his thesis : " My thesis then may be thus summed up : (1) The Pontiff may speak infallibly no less in expositions than in propositions. (2) His ex positions are infallible always and only, when they are intended for the purpose of inculcating doctrine on the Universal Church. Yet (3) they need not be addressed formally to the Universal Church, but may be otherwise authenticated as obliging the absolute assent of Catholics. There remain behind, no doubt, a large number of very important inquiries ; but on these I have either not • spoken confi dently or not spoken at all. How are we to know that some given Pontifical Act is intended for the purpose of inculcating doctrine ? How are we to know whether some Act, confessedly , doctrinal but addressed to an individual, is in tended for his instruction or for that of the whole Church When the Act is confessedly ex cathedra how are we to know whether some given statement be a doctrinal instruction or au obiter diction ? or whether the doctrine it contains be inculcated as infallibly certain or only as infallibly the more probable ? These questions cry aloud for discussion. On several of them I put forth some humble suggestions in January, 1868 ; but I took care to state that I spoke on them with great diffidence, and entirely under correction. And here, in con sequence of your remarks at Postcript, p. 3, I must once more repeat what I have said again and again. By the term "doctrinal instruction" I have never meant any doctrinal statement directly expressed in a Pontifical Act; but only a doctrinal statement put forth for the purpose of teaching doctrine. See my second letter, p. 45, note. Now as to my various instances of doctrinal expositions. I adduced them against the thesis which you have now tacitly surren dered ; namely, that no teaching is ex cathedra except the approval or condemnation of dis tinct and definite propositions. It is abun dantly possible, however, just as you have now unconsciously abandoned your original position, that you may hereafter with equal unconsciousness revert to it ; and it is abun dantly possible also, that some who have fol lowed you in your original view may not follow you in forsaking it. I will therefore point out with the greatest attainable brevity, how irre fragably the instances which I adduced esta blish the conclusion for which I adduced them. I think indeed I may complain of unfair con troversial reserve, in your way of dealing with some of their number." For this establishment of Dr. Ward's conclusions we must again refer our readers to Dr. Ward's pamphlet. In conclusion of his pamphlet, as remarkable for its kind and generous treatment of an op ponent as it is for forcible reasoning and clear statement, Dr. Ward says :—" I never under stood your theory as a whole until I read your letter ;' and my immediate reply to that letter was mainly defensive: it results therefore, that I have now written more aggressively than on any previous occasion. I entreat you, how ever, to believe, that I have not a- particle of ill-feeling towards you. I have been assailed in my time with great acrimony, and few per sons are equally sensitive to such assaults. But I said in my first letter that even in your ' Idealism' I had observed no one trace of unkindness or bitterness; while your `letter' contains many kind references to me, for which I am most grateful. I have felt also from first to last that I was dealing with a thoroughly upright and honourable combatant, who seeks truth, and who takes every pains to under stand his opponent. I should add that, though I have not yet the pleasure of your personal acquaintance, the many private letters which have passel have generated a kind of friend ship between us. But then we must look at propositions in the abstract, apart from such circumstances as these. And 1 must frankly express my opinion that your tenets unite argumentative baselessness with practical calamitousness, to an extent rare in Catholic controversy. No doubt you have displayed much incidental power and theological know ledge. But I have been surprised, as the con t:oversy moved onwards, to find the poverty, or rather the complete absence, of argument adduced for your general thesis. You have not overstated the fact when you say (Letter, pp. 4,5) that " I am utterly unable to con ceive '—or, at least, to find in your writings —` any sort of justification '—nay, or any one solid argument—' for any one of your posi tions ' antagonistic to mine. So much on the argumentative baselessness of your thesis. On its practical calamitousness let me repeat what I have so often said. I consider that your principles lead, by necessary and very speedy consequence, to a denial of the Church's in fallibility altogether ; or, in . other words, to apostacy from her communion. Nor does it at all follow, because assuredly no such result will ensue in your own case, that there may not be real danger of it in the case of others. This or that Catholic may temporarily accept your principles, who does not enjoy that protection which is afforded you by your per sonal piety, your Catholic instincts, and your priestly duties. If he be a straightforward and consistent thinker, there is every hope he may speedily abandon those principles in alarm and dismay. But there is a real danger that he may carry them forward to their legitimate conclusion, and apostatize from the faith." We beseech our readers not to be deterred from the study of this serious question, on the alleged ground that the grave difference of opinion which has arisen is on an abstruse point of theology, or that it is in itself a mat ter of indifference, or that at best it is unprac tical in its character. In the first place nothing can be a matter of indifference which affects in any way the relations between the faithful and the Head of the Church. But this question, as everyone who has considered it must acknowledge, does very vitally affect the character of the authority which the Church exercises over the mind, and affects it in a most practical way. Questions of everry day life, such as mixed or Catholic education, the frequentation of Protestant universities, the relations between science and theology, will be discussed or acted upon in different ways by men who, on the one hand, hold that the judgment of the Church on these and kin dred matters is infallible and commands inte rior assent, and by men who believe, on the other, that these are matters in which the Church may err, and that consequently they are at liberty to hold their own opinion and act as their judgment prompts. .Surely the possibility of such a divergence ought at least to put Catholics on their guard against tole rating, even by silent acquiescence, the intro duction amongst ourselves of so dangerous a theory as that defended with such pertinacity by F. Ryder. JOINT-STOCK Siff INDLES. (From the Anglo-American Times.) Some time ago the Spectator wrote an article on the economic value of the Eighth Commandment, which excited abroad much attention and comment, as it exposed the commercial immorality of the Eng lish people. Shortly after we published an article from the New York Nation on the subject, con trasting commercial morality in America and in England. It asserted that if there were fewer gigantic swindles in the United States it was not for want of enterprise or ability, the necessary skill and courage more abounding there than here. Though the moral basis of American society is similar, and the religious training the same—indeed, exactly alike in the classes in England who do most of the swiudling--yet the state of things revealed here, could not, the writer asserted, exist there, even supposing the commercial morality of Americans to be no higher than that of Englishmen. One of the reasons for this is that wealth is not so highly prized in America as in England, being easier of attainment, and, when acquired, lilt bestowing the same a Ivan tages. But the cause which most struck us was that in every aristocratic country posaessiug a mass of accumulate I c►pital there is a large body of persons belonging to what may be called the " gentle" classes, who have money to in vest, but are ignorant of business to a degree few Americans can imagine. These consist of daughters and younger sons of goo I families, half-pay officers, professional rn2n with small fortunes, and even the children of tra len who have been educated in another sphere, all of whom, instead of being ashamed of their waut of know ledge, glory in it as a mark of a certain social posi tion. The investments of this class in railroads and joint-stock companies of various kinds are enor mous, and they furnish a prey to fraudulent direc tors and operators such as no rogues probably ever lighted on before, and such as rogues in America never meet with. Were the truth of this statement disputed, abundant evidence could be produced by the lists of the victims in the late swindles that have so disgraced the English name. Men not yet old have in thousands been educated throughout England in the conviction that trade is degrading and demoralising, and have remained profoundly ignorant of all the requirements and tests of joint stock undertakings. Yet in times of mania these persons, impelled by greed, rush into concerns they do not understand, and not only become an easy prey, but make rascals of thousands who might otherwise remain honest. If a shoal of small fry get into deep waters they bring balk into the shal lows many big fish which could only be attracted there in the pursuit to devour them. The reaction of the fright tends to stigmatise business, and con vinces the " gentle" classes of the truth of the im pressions they have inherited; so they hug their ignorance until a new generation arise to be duped in their turn, and to recoil in the same way. The feeling which urges men to make the most of their means must always remain, and if the igno rance also remains, these violent manias and disas trous panics will be periodical. What those classes have suffered within the last two years will never be known to the world ; but if the multitude of failed concerns be considered, it will be seen in the aggregate to be frightful. The suffering does not consist alone in the loss of the money actually in vested, but in the liability involve 1, fur most of these " limited" liability swindles were conceived, carried on, and wound up with the express object of defrauding to the utmost those duped into be coming shareholders. Many of these persons were educated in the conviction that a gentleman could neither lie nor steal, and that people of good repu tation in a certain social position were gentlemen. Attracted by statements to which such names were appended. as a rule they called at the office for information, and saw a glib secretary, who rubbed his hands with glee over the heaps of money about to be made by every one fortunate enough to se cure an interest in the new concern. This accom modating gentleman would be the friend of the inquirer and advocate his cause in the allotment of shares. The certainty of the facts and figures was pleasant to dwell on, both to himself and the listener, and while interest was paid out of capi tal it was charming for the investor to think ho .v shrewd he had bean, and how well he deserved of all who derived a benefit from his 8L1C3033. Ignorant of all the intricacies of trade, unable to analyse a report, or to understand how a depression in one branch affected another, believing in the truth of the statements made, and unaware of the total change passing over the commercial world, the victim rested in a false security till fairly caught in the undertaking when insolvent. Then only the peFition began to be realized, and the glib secretary was applied to for information. Of course the scheme was thoroughly sound and did but break down from the lack of funds, from the dishonesty of foreign agents, from the failure of other companies, from the want of confidence in the banks and lendees. They were all innocent victims of an inappreciative public of anything but the lyiug, liiag c;e4r. It was vain to point to the prospectus, to the balance-sheets, for the statements are without exaggeration and the figured correct ; bat who could foresee this, who autie'pate that? C a!ls press at the time other property is depreciate 1 ot unsaleable, and the victim bcc)m !,3 a seppliant. He has been unmercifully fleeces, but by process of /au', and he finds he has been merely paying to pile on his head a huge liability. flow to escape being crushed into a Court of Bankruptcy is now Oa poor man's difficulty, and the amount of dirt he must eat ere he can enjoy the privilege of being let alone in total ruin is a warning to all who know the cir cumstances. The injured his to appear before the injurers to pray for time or for a mitigation of the penalty he has incurred for his faith. "We cannot make flesh of one and fowl of another," is the reply of the men whose nam , s are appended to the false assertions and figures which beguiled, and those who assured him that no money beyond what he had paid would b 3 required unblushingly sly that he had no right to in3ur a liability which he was not prepared to liquid ste. The extraordinary spectacle is then seen of the ro'her using the terrors of the law against the robbe I, of solicitors threaten ing writs and imprisonment, of judges announcing that a hideous swindle has been perpetrated in a correct legal form, and therefore the duped are liable and the beguilers justified by law. Who is it that frames these acts of Parliament under which with impunity an OVEREND-GURNEY, a Con tract Corporation, a Joint Stock Discount Swindle ca❑ safely be perpetrated ? They arc composed of two classes--those wholly ignorant of business to whom the Nation alludes, and those who have profited by the Acts they have managed to carry through Parliament. Nobody hears of the members being ruined, for they are either large landed proprietors and manufacturers, or wealthy commercial men who understand the under-current of business, and some of whom, however they might lead in a mania, make as much or more in the after panic which they know how and when will super vene. Success is the god of an Englishman's idolatry, and is accepted, no matter how attained, as the proof of worth. The converse is elually true, and failure, no matter how incurred, is dis grace ; therefore the duped is the culprit, and the cheat the shining light of society so long as he can carry on without exposure. As these atrocious joint stock swindles lead to no exposure so far as their concoctors are concerned, they form the best system of robbery yet devised, though appalling in the amount of misery and torture incurred by the entrapped. A ilindoo mother, by way of rebuke to her son who recoiled from joining the Thugs to whom he belonged by hereditary right, purchased and choked for him a multitude of sprats which lie finished. " Now," said she, " calculate the loss of life that went to furnish that one meal, yet over a single life you make this bobbery." The CREATOR haS so framed creation that we must prey on each other, the weaker being devoured by the stronger, anti this ii the law of existence upon which these promoters work. The only hope is in dissipating the ignorance of business which has made England the happy hunt ing-ground of the trapper. There is no necessity for enacting laws to aid him in his operations, but no legislation will shield his victims if they wilfully remain ignorant of his wiles. The only safety is in knowledge of business, or power to apply tests to men and things, and to analyse balance-sheets. The basis of the information necessary is one of the foundation-stones of Christianity—the utter wicked ness and depravity of human nature. Those who hold up glittering baits areas much actuated by be nevolent motives as the fisherman who dances a gaudy fly before the eyes of a salmon, and let the fish who feel inclined to rise be wise in time and know a bait from a feed, or they will swallow the hook, and be played, to the delight of the angler and to his ultimate gain, in a substantial dinner. Wilkes' Spirit says of Daly's now piece, "A Flash of Lightning," "that the title of the piece is derived from the stage fact that a flash of lightning through an open window picks up a gold chain, melts and scatters it over the coals in a scuttle, and a young girl is suspected of the theft. Of course she is finally proved to be innocent, after many hair-breadth 'seal es by' flood and field."' The cast is extremely good, with one or two outrageous exceptions, to whom we will pay our respects in the future, as the piece is destined to a run. Mr. Daly deserves great credit for enterprise, untiring industry, and liberality, but we will fancy hint more of a dramatist if he will dissolve partner ship with the stage carpenter. If we seem captious, the young author will remember that eternal fault finding is the price of dramatic excellence, and vin are not much given to adulation of men and things- Fanny Motant goes to Selwyn's Theatre in Boston next season. Wyl , l Hardinge, husband of Belle Boyd, is elocu lionising in California. The White Fawn is running like a winner at Chicago, and is already in its second week, and as crowded as on the opening night. The manage ment have sensibly refused to comply with the general western desire to encore everything which strikes the fancy. Excursion parties are now made up from the adjacent towns to Chicago, and Messrs. Jarrett and Palmer will reap a large interest front their costly, risky eaterprise. Don John Wallack has dismissed the cares of business from his mind, and with his family gone down to his charming residence at Long Branch for the summer. Madame Agatha States remains in New York, and is en gaged, wo believe, for the fall with Maretzek. Billy Floyd is back from New Orleans. Mrs. Bowers is taking a tour through the interior of California. Frank Lawlor goes to Europe for a few months' recrea tion. Couldock and daughter are at Piper's Opera House, Virginia amity. W. H. Hamilton, long treasurer of the Metropolitan Theatre in San Franciser, is afflicted with cancer of the tongue, and is about to visit Europe to con sult the most eminent medical authorities. James Stark is running a Theatre Melbourne, Australia. John Wilson, circus man, of world-wide notoriety, is back in California. Mrs. John Wood will not come back. "Humpty Dumpty" crowds the -New Chesnut, in Philadelphia. "Under the Gaslight" is still drawing at the Arch. Joe Jefferson is presenting tho old Knickerbocker Rip to the Quakers in Philadelphia." A city census, just completed, represents the population of Chicago as a little over 240,009, an increase of 40,000 since November, 1866. The women are slightly in the majority. [A.DVERTISEDIEIiTI—Henceforth no one will doubt the valuable properties of Du Barry's health-restoring Revalenta, Arabic* Invalids' and Infants' Food, since to the thousands of blessing s it has already received from Invalids whose position had been deemed hopeless, we may now add that of his Holiness the Pope! whose health has been perfectly restored by it after thirty years of unsuccessful medical treatment. We quote from the "Gazette du Midi," July 25th :—" Rome, July 21, 1866. -The health of the Hob' Father is excellent, especially since, abandoning all other reme dies, he has confined himself entirely to Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food, of which he consumes a plateful at every meal: It has produced a surprisingly beneficial effect on his health, an his Holiness cannot praise this excellent food too highly." NO extract a few out of more than 68,000 cures :—Cure No. 58,216, of the Marchioness de Brehan, of seven years' liver complaint, wasting away, debility, nervousness, with a nervous palpitation all over, bad digestion, constant sleeplessness, and the most 151 tolerable nervous agitation. Cure No 1.771: Lord Stuart de Decies, Lord-Lieutenant of Waterford, of many years' dysper.a! s * No. 49,832: "Fifty years' indescribable agony from dyspePo e ' nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation, flatulency, spasnla, sickness, and vomiting —Maria Joly " Cure No. 46,270: Air. James Roberts, of Frimley, Surrey, of 30 years' diseased ltufg's , spitting of blood, liver derangement, and partial deafness. s': portant Caution—Beware of the many unsavoury and more than sloppy imitations to which, without authority, Baron Liebeg' s name is most audaciously attached. In tins, at ls. 1,d.• 1 lb., 2s. 9d ; 2 lbs., 4s 6d.; 5 lbs., 11s. 12 lbs., 22s ; 24 bs , '4os —BARRY no BARRY and Co., No. 7 7, Regent-street, London; also Fortnum and Mason, 182, Picca dilly, and at 61, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside; 63, 150, and 298, oxford-street; 330, Strand; and all grocers and chemists. ADVERTISEMENT.] Holloway's Pills. Watch the Weather.—This is perhaps the best counsel that could be circulated at this soason. Will all follow it? Will every one change his raiment as the temperature vaHe- ? Th e next best advice is to have in readiness a box of Hollo way's pills, and with them to oppose the first intrusion or stop the advancing symptoms of disease. No cold , catarrh, or cough should be left to itself, either may lei the foundatien of danger if not undermined by suitable means, and none surpass Holloway's for efficiency. ILI fever, asthma, diarrhoea, and a host of other complaints, weary-laying the weak and delicate when the day is ho t with cool mornings and evenings, are cured by Holloway s medicine. Births. BARING —On the 26th inst., nt 1, Chester-place, Chester square, Mrs. Charles Baring, of a son. FLOULKER—On the 26th inst., at 86, Sloane•street, ISO' Edmund Floulker, of a son. TAYLOR—On the 26th inst., at 21, Gloucester-cresce nt, R3gent's-park, N.W., Mrs. Seth Taylor, of a son. Marriages. CLARKE —HOWLEY—On the 25th inst., at the Church O f St. Andrew's, Westland-row, Dublin, Henry .0. Clarke , Esq., of Ateombo Court, Gloucestershire, to Henrietta, youngest daughter of the late Sir John Howley, lie n 4i Majesty's First Serjeant in Ireland. RUSSELL—HENRY—On the 27th inst., at St. Stephe l l Church, Westbourne-park, William C. Russell, secoa son of 11. Russell, Esq., of Kensington-gardens-squa ll, and Portswuod, Hants, to Ann Maria Alexandri ne, eldest daughter of David J. Henry, Esq., of 55 K e nsipr ton-gardens-square. Deaths. Anmrr—On the IGth inst., at 'Ashley House, St. Saviour . l' Jersey, Lieut.-Oulouel L. J. A. Arrait, Royal Digineel' aged 42. LONG—Os tho 26th inst., at 51, Queen Aune-stroet, Cav'W dish-square, G. Long, Esq., bencher of Gray's-inn. PAINTER—On the 27th inst., at 4, Beaufort-gard ellsl Brampton-road, Richard Painter, surgeon, aged 71. SIMPSON—On the 23d inst., at Little Carterton, near Stagy' ford, Robert. C. Simpson, Esq., aged 91. WALLET—On the 25th inst., at Stanway, Essex, Stepbell Waller, Esq., aged 57. ------- Lonim Printed ind Published by WI.LLIA.M ANDlLN''vic S li of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at 'Nu Sus (Mcb.), No o f :.^.trin iu the Precinct of the Sr voy, in the Ceu lti Ilidd:esex.•;-11onday, June 29, 1868. ' ji ti_i_i_ !. R INA I This eelel: It i*Pure. Sold in•Bc the..tgents ii 4 ' 8," Gl Obe , rvo th l an's LL WI NrU TU 14. Russ hFANCEea . hd or L S &hle Weekly, Forms free o _ROYAL TRIU alin4 T,Ofi Mtn` if i 0 f 11, t ! G. F6l aro en and his to Gvinnl4: Mr. R. L and Mr. J. Privato Proragnario, Tito wl C A N Tml - ncsnse VAorge Leyt 14 031, with the Invisib'e great end Iktdile: Carle. wlth new e rhnieal, the Brand DEMO a nd!ilessr.4. Y' l2 rPs de Be As Stalls Doori SPECIAL PAY, June EAU: from - RAOAME C Open fr A . RGYI This in3,g t , uavino• been by Messrs. 1 Lot the .AITT ' Ol O Cornet, ,____ I T ANF fectly whole Strand (cor ---.=__ PURNI 11 -: per "V number of F as urnisT 'mods of iv, equate. 41 0133 ES- ni or so pROPE D. T. all desaripti t.rxr outlay.' lun - tphrlea ;Ulna of - b ie tratt4tarr.•d. House-: 1/OUNI PIGS v ented And I.I XGIExic C a ges. It st R6stion, pai t.Ol/ITnoncled ,11%0.1th and ur,raco g and B tl'oet, Oxfo SPA.NIS ALT Peedily pro 61 f 6d, ani ilt .;""nT),;—A ' 4l Chemist I ,, i , s ,r t in ( rqr CO Stan chemists. cnrls Lon i 3 0 1 ,1 at 3 i : 411 11 lit sta (21 REY 1 ALE "lour •r f lEtril "tIY nitn tl Q mi si, s n t. t s b Alit Lon kovos sun , I:ithout eff4 41 .; sent f( puAIPL y .- skin EriETAI ‘l,ll3wnesa, tat anlos 411 Chemist hea "wirea or to )setttlains so —A 41 1(1 all Ch( Vst put GLII` desc b r the ap _ l li, Loud AE aLTii 11 BA and ( )taco, 1.1 f~ f~ Ohs