The Sun. — London, England, 1868-04-23 00:00:00

SPIRIT OP TEE PUBLIC ;COUSLNALS, The Times gives an estimate beforehnid of the Budget, the first of Mr. Ward Hunt. Apart f rom Abyssinia, it says, the surplus for the year, takin g credit for the additional penny of income tax occasioned by the expe. dition, would have been £1,181,000. What will be the charge for the expedition in 1868-9? It will be Mr. Hunt's duty to answer this painful question, and it need scarday be said that even his answer must be conjectural. It will not be safe, we fear, to assume it at less than five millions, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, on thit, assumption, have to provide for a deficiency of £3,819,000. The strain upon the committee will begin when the ways and means to meet this deficiency have to be submitted to their consideration. How shall a deficiency amounting in round num bers to four millions be provided? There is one mode, only too tempting to a Finance Mi-Aister, which can be at once suggested. Raise the income tax from sd. to 81—it is but a penny above the rate originally imposed by Sir Robert Peel—and the difficulty is met. The lead ing journal cannot too earnestly deprecate such counsels, if they have occurred to the mind of Mr. Hunt. It is the c:pc6al drawback on the income tax as a political engine that it places such an immense power in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. It is so easy, and, it may be added, it is so popular, a plan of action to raise the rate of the income tax. The temptation ought to be resisted at all times, and especially when the govern went of the country is about to undergo a great change. In the town meetings of New England, which, with the pos. sible exception of some of the smaller Swiss cantons, afford the purest specimens of democracy in action, the expenses of the community are defrayed by a tax upon real and per sonal property, and the State courts are continually invoked to prevent illegal and wasteful expenditure de creed by a popular vote at the cost of the wealthier in habitants. The cost of the Abyssinian expedition has been hithhto borne by the payers of income tax alone ; it is essential that the charge for it in the coming year should be partially laid upon the classes who do not come within the scope of that impost. It is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to suggest the proper sources of supply. We shall leave it to Mr. Hunt to de termine whether tea, or sugar, or malt, or any combina tion of these or other commodities, be recommended as the means of furnishing additional revenue in aid of the Exchequer. The Daily Telegraph observes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to state how he means to provide for the expenditure connected with the Abyssinian war, and also how he can secure that the ordinary outlay of the 'year shall not exceed the income which may reasonably be anticipated. In the interests of the over-burdened tax• payer it is imperatively necessary that a check should be applied to the prodigal distribution of grants from the Exchequer, and of promises which must one day be redeemed. Fresh burdens will be submitted to with a little less reluctance if the public feel assured that no waste is permitted in deference to local clamours or jobbery, and that the same economy which the events of the last two years have rendered necessary in almost every household is applied with rigorous impartiality to the affairs of the nation. The Star calls attention to the rumour that Mr. Hunt, who hal been fished out of the depths to teach us finance, intends to add twopence per pound to the income tax. Mr. Gladstone would have fr alined to carry on an expedition against a greasy savage without putting on a war tax, bad he and his Cabinet perpetrated the folly of going to war at all in such a country with such an opponent. But it is, not improbable that a Ministry without a policy and without a Finance Minister may have determined to make up for a deficiency in intellect and re source by extracting some more millions of taxa tion from the people. Are we obliged to submit to all this? No one can have the least dependence upon the figures which Mr. Hunt may lay before us. His exposition of the revenue may be correct, or it may be a million or two out of joint. Upon his estimates of expen diture we can place as little confidence ; for the depart ments, rot having the fear of a master before their eyes, have doubtless shaped them to please themselves. War Office, Admiralty, aryl Civil Service may play ducks and drakes with millions. They know imbecility reigns at the Treasury, and that political authority is a thing of the past. It may seem a light thing to many who have not realised to themselves the importance of the office of Chan cellor of the Exchequer, that Mr. Disraeli should have put an untried man to muddle the department ; but if he makes blunders now it may stop financial reform for years. The Post has an article on the bill to secure to married women the benefit of their property and earnings, free from the control of the husband, introduced by Mr. Shaw Lefevre. That the property and earnings of a thrifty in- 1 anstrious woman should be seized and squandered by an idle and profligate husband, who is too cunning io desert her, as that would enable her to obtain protection under the recent law, but prefers to live upon her and lay his hands upon everything she receives, is a very great hard- Fillip, no doubt. But if this hardship is to be removed by giving the wife a legal right to the control of the property, it will not be practicable to maintain that exemption from being sued for debt which married women have hitherto en joyed. The eld law sets off a manifest advantage against a manifest disad wattage. At the same time it must be admitted that the present law is unsatisfactory. A man may cling to his wife just for the very purpose of spending her earnings, and unless he desert her she cannot claim protection. True, ante-nuptial settlements may be con cluded, and Chancery will order provision to be set apart in certain cases. But this is, to all practical intents and purposes, one law for the rich and another for the poor. The poor, who most need protection, cannot afford pre nuptial settlements, even were there anything but future earnings to settle ; nor can they afford applications to the Court of Chancery for a post-nuptial settlement to secure any little property or income they may become possessed of or be able to earn. When, therefore, the husband ceases to maintain his wife, it ought to be deemed to be desertion in law, and she ought to be entitled to the use and benefit of her own property and earnings. Such an alteration as that proposed by the present bill has been found to work well in countries where it has been adopted, and that some such change is called for in England there cannot be a reasonable doubt. The Standard declares that Mr. Shaw Lefevre's bill will effect something very like a social revolution in the rela tions between husband and wife. At present, the wife's property, by the act of marriage, becomes vested in her husband. Her real estate is so far under her control, that her lord and master cannot sell it without her concurrence, though he can assert a right to receive and spend as he pleases the rents and profits as they accrue. But her per sonal property, her money, goods, and chattels, are his Absolutely, to spend, to waste, to squander in any way he likes, subject only to the power which courts of equity have asserted of having sonic part thereof set apart for her separate use, in much the same way as if it had 'been previously settled by a formal instrument. Of course this state of things gives rise to many hard cases and much individual suffering. Everyone has heard of instances in which women have been kissed or kicked out of their property by those to whom they have plighted their troth, and who have had to ;endure the pressure of poverty because they had erro neously thought they might safely trust their money where 'They trusted themselves. On the other hand, it must be owned there is a good deal of force in the reasons by which this state of things is usually justified and defended. The law has cast upon the husband the duty of providing for his wife's support, and therefore it seems only right that it should invest him with control over whatever funds she may possess, which may be available for meeting the responsibilities and expenses which the marriage bond ordinarily involves. At any rate, this is the theory of our law, and though we do not mean to say that the practice is in perfect harmony with it, we confess it seems to us that enough is to be said in support of it, to make any off hand alteration extremely undesirable. The gemld treats with ridicule the great outcry which is being raised in one particular quarter at the prospect of seeing the " wires " placed under the control of St. Martin'sde-Grand. The apprehended consequences are terrific, and the proposal brings us to the very brink of Niagara. Nothing will save us, if once the telegraph comes under the control of the Government. The very springs of the national existence will be poisoned. '1 Purity of election will exist no longer, for the Government candidate will " wire " his opponent as a poacher would a hare. A change of Government Nvill be impossible, for the Opposition will never be able to summon their adherents in time for a division. The newspapers of the Opposition will also come to grief, for, of course, the Government will take care that the news telegrams shall be always " too.late " for the use of editors who fly the wrong flag. Worse than all, it will be nest to impossible to travel by railway, except at the imminent risk of life, f"r o n electric tele rr;rt{r signal the safety of all railway traffic ; and if the present system is interfered with, the meddling and Twi ddling will be frightful. Then there will be no such thing ass mahing a fair contract with the GoVerntrent fox any kind of service. - - The Daily .21 r exs observes that the marriage of the Crown Prince of Italy to his charming cousin, th e Princeris Margaret of Savoy, is an event in the early his tory of the new kingdom so full of good auguries ano joyous hopes, that Court and nation may well be per mitted to forget for a moment, in the pomp and splen dour of t7:e nuptial solemnities, and in the tumult el the popular rejoicings, the anxieties of yesterday and the troubles of to.morrow. On every account and . it re2peets this marriage deserves to be an occasion publie j,,y in Italy, and to be r-garded with mire well-founded satisfaAion by -those statesmer tr.rs who have at heart the dignity ant' f the Italian Crown. The union of the Crown with a Princess adorned by nature aue I t , nler solicitude with all the graces and al' win aft action and conciliate esteem, ant . idluence of a beautiful example upon i nary or trivial moti - ye for festivity among ..o until lately were only too fond of escaping from the responsibilities and the realities of a work-a-da) world on any and every pretext. Nor should the sterile] instinct of a northern race be too ready to condemn the softer ways of the children of the south, born to bask in the sun, to chirp in melodious vowels, to take life as a per petual afternoon, and trained by the sensuous supersti time of a transmuted Paganism, and by centuries of state eraft . and servitud e , " t o l ove d e li g ht s and li ve i ng l or i o u s days '—a people of mimes, and minstrels, and mounts banks. the virtm4 tii that .;11tyl th 3IR. SPURGEON ON THE IRISH CHURCH. At the great meeting which was held at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, on Wednesday night, to urge the disestablish ment of the Irish Church, the following letter from the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon was read: " Dear Sir,—l have all along hoped to be at our meet ing to-night, but a sharp attack of rheumatic gout in the leg has made me a prisoner since Monday. lam most sorry for this, because with my whole heart and soul I would advocate the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, and should like to have said my little word. " It is in no spirit of opposition to the Irish clergy that I would urge upon the House of Commons to carry out the proposed resolution, for I. believe them as a body to be among the best part of the Episcopal clergy, and to hold evangelical truths most earnestly. But because they are the best of the clergy they should be the first to be favoured with the great blessing of disestablishment. If they were all Baptists, I should be none the less, but all the more, earnest that they should at once be delivered from their pre sent invidious position, and placed where all Churches of Christ should be—viz., on the footing of freedom from State patronage and control. They are at present sup ported by payments which are not theirs by the will of the Irish nation—payments which effectually bar the door of their entrance into the Irish heart, payments which I be lieve to be hateful to God and injurious to themselves ; therefore, because they are men in their own persons ex cellent and respectable, let it be the ceaseless object of their friends to set them where they need not incur such reproach or commit such injustice. They will only be called to do what some of us bare for years found a plea sure and advantage in doing—viz., to trust to the noble spirit of generosity which true religion is sure to evoke. They little know how grandly the giant of Voluntaryism will draw the chariot when the pitiful State dwarf is dis missed. " Our Lord's Kingdom is not of this world. This truth is the corner-stone of our dissent, and we feel ourselves deeply interested in the present question, because the re sult of Mr. Gladstone's resolutions will be a step in the di rection of freeing one of the churches from a worldly alliance which we hold to be in every case unscriptural and unhallowed. How a faith so spiritual as ours ever came to be the tool of the State—how the Church of God ever con descended to yield its liberties to earthly powers—is a mys tery. To tear it from its too-willing captivity is a task worthy of the Eternal Providence ; a labour in which all good men should unite. " The one point about which the Dissenter'f England have any fear is one which I trust you will mention to night. We fear lest any share of the Church property should be given to the Papists. To a man we should deprecate this. Dad as the present evil is, we would sooner see it let alone than see Popery endowed with the national property. Not one single farthing ought any religious denomination to receive, and the whole matter will be imperilled if those in power are not quite clear as to any douceurs to the Pope. We are not agitated by the dead horse of No Popery,' which knaves would raise that fools may be their instruments ; but we are very determined that it never shall be said that, under guise of removing the grievances of Ireland, we made an exchange of endowed churches, and put down the Anglican to set up the Roman image. " May you, dear sir, be sustained as the champion of the people, and as you have already lived to sec many of the dreams of your youth become realities, so may you survive to see the matters in question enrolled in history ss triumphs of the right and the truth !—Yours, with pro found respect, " C. N. SPURGEON. "To John Bright, Esq., Chairman of Meeting." LETTER FROM ONE OF THE ABYSSINIAN CAPTIVES. rhe following letter, dated Amba, Magdala, March 3, .s been received from the Rev. H. A. Stern:— " You will be glad to learn that the worthy Theodorus has again received a check, and that so serious that he cannot even despatch a messenger to this Amba. His progress from Debra Tabor to Dalanta, amid a host of insurgents, who lined his road on all sides, so that he dared not deviate from the regular track to gratify his wonted love for plunder and booty, was, to the sur prise of every one, not marked by those ruthless deed. of cruelty which months before drew upon him the maledictions and execrations of an exasperated, but, unfortunately, divided and helpless people. Many already thought that he had resolved to reform, or at least to adopt a milder and more lenient rule towards the scattered villages near and around Magdala, which to some extent still professed fealty to his departed sway. Part of Daunt and Dalanta (the districts located on the plateau that separates the Djiddah from the Beshilo rivers), by flattering and glowing promises, were induced to return to the allegiance of their despised hut detested lord. Fully persuaded that their fa - len master would not now, as on former occasions, forfeit their support by the breach of a most solemn engagement, they strove, and strove hard, to please the capricious, whimsical, and faithless despot. At his own particular request the chiefs remained in the camp, while the people carried his baggage, assisted in making the road, and, together with his ragamuffins, alias soldiers, dragged his unwieldy machines, pompously desig nated cannons, up to their own verdant plain. Praises the most lavish and profuse were abundantly bestowed on the good and loyal Dalanta peasantry. They were liege subjects, excellent fathers, and most exemplary men ; nay, on the last Sunday before the Abyssinian Lent, during a broundo (raw meat) feast, he assured the village authorities that they and their descendants and the dis trict entrusted to their charge should to the very verge of time enjoy immunities and privileges the most glorious and distinguished a monarch could bestow. Thinking that his wily smiles and glib tongue had dispelled every apprehen sion of treachery, he gave secret orders to his banditti to fall, before the day dawn, upon the sleeping peasantry and to despoil them of their property. The plan was well conceived, but not so easily carried into effect. The slumbering, though surprised people, were not quite unprepared, so that the ruffians, before they could execute their fell purpose, had to struggle, and straggle fiercely, with their stout-hearted, obstinate victims. Numbers, it is reported, of the King's people were knocked clown by the heavy, knotted clubs of the vigorous peasantry ; others were brained by the infuriated women ; and not a few, even in the camp itself, were stretched upon the ground never to rise again, by the frantic chiefs whom they sought to make their prisoners. The Daunt and scores of the Wadela people, on hearing the war-whoop, hurried (as is quite unusual in this reft country), to the assistance of 'their neighbours, and by their united efforts they drove the bragging Negus behind the shelter of his artillery. Ire is now, with his diminished bands, quite encompassed by the enraged peasantry, who day and night make the ttir ring with sarcastic gibes and menacing threats. In the Royal camp itself all is dejection, sorrow, and despair. Wives bereaved of their husbands, mothers of their sons, companions of their friends, plunged in the deepest grief, run to and fro, in the vain hope that tears and sighs, mournful dirges, and vehement gesticulations will alleviate their distress and soothe the keen an guish of the desolate heart. The King has strictly interdicted all these boisterous demonstrations for the dead, as they enhance the triumph and exulta tion of his foes ; but his injunctions are disregarded, or met by a louder wail or wilder shrieks. The Negoos Negest (King of Kings), as he vauntingly styles himself, is at present in an ugly fix. To descend into the River Beshilo, with his clumsy ordnance and thinned bands, is a task of considerable difficulty, and to remain stationary in the midst of the insurgents, whose eyes flash vengeance and death, is too humiliating to his proud and arrogant Spirit. lam inclined to think that, like ourselves, he is anxious for the approach of the British troops, whose advent will terminate the destructive and unequal conflict in which the captor and captured, the spoiler and the spoiled, are mutually involved. The above and similar incidents which during the last few years have characterised the career of our oppressor and precipitated his fall are fraught with the deepest interest and most impor tant consequences to us and the people. Had he the forces which surrounded him only eighteen months ago, our position just now would, humanly speaking, he most trying, if not actually critical. His gradual weak ness and decline, it is true; may be attributed to his . violence and passion, rapacity and cruelty, but for my part, I hear above the din and tumult the yells and moans of a wounded and bleeding people, the voice of Him who in adversity and prosperity, in all places and under all circumstances, proclaims in the ears of His people this cheering and sustaining message, 'Be still, and know that lam Cod.'—l am, &c., your affectionate " 11. A. STERN. "P.S.—From papers which have occasionally reached us, I think Mr. Rassam has been rather unfairly dealt with. I have reason to say that hp did all in his power to effect our liberation. Ey using well-shaped,sentences ;Ind hyperbolical expressions of hiendship, blended somctime. - with phrases of severity nod indignation, he saved us what a bolder tone might not have effected—viz., from incar ceration a second time in the common gaol. Hitherto the Negus has continued to profess the most unbounded regard for Mr. R. Although last rainy season there were ominous whispers that if the Amba was attacked the guards would chop up the Europeans and toss them over the precipice, yet he was to be the exception. And no doubt Mr. R. will, in our present position, prove of infi nite advantage to us, and also, perhaps, help to ensure the success of the expected field force. His behaviour towards the King and Amba chiefs (the most exacting scoundrels in Alava) has conferred many favours onus THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 23, 1868. PROGRESS OF IMPEACHMENT. The days that mark great epochs in the Presi dent's trial are destined to be varied by every ima ginable weather. We have bad a howling snow storm, a steady downpour, a bright sunshiny day, and on Monday, the 30th March, when the High Court again met to hear the case for the prosecu tion, the Capitol was enveloped in fog. The bleak ness of winter seemed to lie beneath the dull mantle that hid Washington from the sun, and the gay spring dresses of the ladies looked strangely out of character. Again, the g illeries sparkled with all the wealth and fashion of Washington; the Am bassadors of England, France, the North German Confederation, and Turkey were there, but it was noticed that the seats of the diplomatic gallery were not so well filled as before. The proceedings opened precisely at the same time, and in the same manner as usual. At one o'clock the Chief Justice entered by the side door, announced by the gavel of Mr. Wade, whose scat Mr. Chase took and called the Court to order. Then followed the usual procla mation, after which the managers entered, seating themselves to the left of the Clerk, followed by the Representatives, who took their Chairs behind the Senate. Mr. Butler rose 'to open the argument for the prosecution. Before him lay a pile of papers, the bundle of manuscript giving promise of an in terminable speech—nor was that promise belied. For two hours he continued to read, when the ex hausted assembly called a ten minutes halt, and a rush followed to the bars and restaurants. On their return the pleader resumed, shortly after closing his argument, when Mr. Bingham stretching across the table shook him warmly by the hand. Mr. Butler opened by alluding to the onerous duty it had become his lot to perform. The novelty of the proceed ings might be judged from the fact that this was the first instance in the history of the civilised world that a nation had brought before its highest tribu nal its chief magistrate accused of the maladminis tration of the powers and duties of his office. He described the law as affecting the case—who they are that may be impeached, and the nature of im peachable offences ; observing—" We define, there fore, an impeachable high crime or misdemeanour to be one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of govern ment, or highly prejudicial to the public interest ; and this may consist of a violation of the Constitu tion, of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted, or, without violating a positive law by the abuse of discretionary powers, from improper motives or for any improp©r purpose. The first criticism which will strike the mind on a cursory examination of this definition is, that some of the enumerated acts are not within the common law definition of crimes." Madison was quoted among others to show that the wanton removal of meritorious officers might subject a President to re moval. The Senate was to try the question as a Senate, not as a court, and he cited English history, alluding to the House of Lords, to sustain the assumption that the presence of a judge is not neces sary. Ile denied the right of challenge on trials for impeachment, and remarked that if such a right were admitted, that the President's son-in-law, Senator David T. Patterson, of Tennessee, might, though he scarcely would, be objected to by the pro secution. But it would probably challenge Senator Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, who had publicly borne testimony to the good intentions of the Pre sident, and who delivered to him the congratulatory address of the Philadelphia Convention, the 11th Article of Impeachment being based on the Presi dent's reply. The first eight charges were next commented on—all founded on the President's attempted removal of Secretary Stanton. The facts he asserted are admitted in the President's answer, who claims the powers he exercised as his right—that is a prerogative more than kingly. He proceeded to show that in its exercise the President contemplated the usurpation of all the Governmental powers. lie asserted that the President's answer to these eight charges raises the momentous question whether the Presidential office, if it has the prerogatives and power claimed for it, ought longer to be permitted to exist as a part of the Constitutional Government of a free people. The attention of the Court was more especially called to the power of removal—and Mr. Butler argued that as appointments to office arc only allowed by the Constitution, by and with the advice and consent of Senate, removals from office can only be made by the same means. Otherwise, there being no check, monarchical powers may be as sumed. He answered the objection that President Johnson did not appoint Edwin Stanton, that, if it be so, the President might be impeached for keeping an usurper in office ; at the same time lie denied the assertion, declaring that if the provisions of the Civil Tenure Act do not limit Mr. Stanton's term, he holds office for life, and that Act he maintained has been recognized by the President as binding. The question of the constitutionality of any law of Congress is irrelevant in this trial ; the simple fact being that the President is bound to execute the law when passed. His constitutional right in oppo sition is his Veto, which, when over-ruled by a two thirds majority, makes the law binding. Other wise he would execute the Veto, and leave the law unexecuted, which would make Congress a cypher. He asked—" Will you hear an argument, as a Senate of the United States—a majority of whom voted for that very bill—upon its constitutionality in the trial of an executive officer for wilfully vio lating it before it had been doubted by any court?" Ile then discussed the Supreme Court, insinuating it to be a partisan body, from whom a fair decision could not be expected. He took up the President's o pposition to the Senate, and observed, that had he in contradiction of the course he adopted asked permission of the Senate in a way he sketched, to remove Mr. Stanton, the case would have been different, and the removal might have been sanctioned. He alluded to the accident by which Andrew Johnson succeeded to the office, and the bullet of Booth, an allusion we are free to confess, considering the gross charges formerly made by General Butler against Andrew .Johnson of having been instrumental in directing that bullet, which must have required all the well known impudence of the advocate. Returning to the charges, he said —" By the 9th, 10th, and 11th articles the less important inquiry is to be deter_ mined whether Andrew Johnson has so conducted himself that he ought longer to hold any constitu tional office whatever. Examining the 9th charge, he discussed the interview between the President and the officer commanding at Washington (General Emory), which he considered proof of an attempt on the President's part to secure insubordination in the army. He asked—" Is it not a high mis demeanour for the President to assume to instruct the officers of the army that the laws of Congress are not to be obeyed ?" Referring to the 10th charge, he announced that he would in each else give in evidence—that in his celebrated tour in 1866 the President did make and declare with a loud voice intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, uttering loud threats and bitter menaces against Congress and against the laws of the United States—the phonographic notes of the reporters. it was here that Mr. Butler rose to eloquence and exhibited a rare mastery over his subject. He spoke with the concentrated essence of bitterness, and turning suddenly the vein, he ridiculed the position then assumed by Andrew Johnson. The scenes at Cleveland and St. Louis were graphically described, but in a tone of great exaggeration. The question he asserted, was not one of freedom of speech as illeged in the President's Answer, but of the pro priety and decency of speech and conduct in a high official, and that gravity of deportmeit amenity of behaviour which ought to form part of the President's elevated duties. Ile said lie would prove the 11th Article, which asserted that on the 18th August, 1866, the President pub ;icly declared that the XXX IXth Congress was not lawful, being only a Congress of a part of the States, and hence that ho had endeavoured to prevent the execution of the Tenure-of-Office Act. Then he went on to discuss the conduct of the President as a whole. He charged him with a continual desire to thwart and bring into contempt the Congress of the United States, and 4 a the maintained was the meaning of all he said and did. that by him the pacification of the country was obstructed ; the laws openly and covertly opposed ; a new Southern rebellion fo mented, leading to assassination and massacres. He had refused to punish criminals; he had at tempted to array the military against Congress, and it had been in pursuance of his design to overthrow Congress that he had striven to obtain possession of the War Office. " Would it not," he exclaimed, "be a notification—an invitation rather—standing to all time to any bold, bad, aspiring man to seize the liberties of the people which they had shown them selves incapable of maintaining or defending, and playing the role of a Caesar or Napoleon here to establish a despotism ; while this, the last and greatest experiment of freedom and equality of right in the people, following the long line of buried republics, sinks to its tomb under the blows of usurped power from which free representative go vernment shall arise to the light of a morn of resur rection, never more, never more for ever!" Appeal ing to the Senate, he asked their protection of their own constitutional rights and those of the House, and referring to Cromwell and to King henry VIII. he cited the trial of Anne Boleyn, stating "that King llenryknew the strength of his case, and we know the strength of ours against this respon dent." Then demanding judgment for his great crimes upon the criminal at the bar he concluded with these words :—" We have presented the facts in the constitutional manner. Never again, if Andrew Johnson go quit and free this day, can the people of this or any other country, by constitutional checks or guards, stay the usurpation of executive power. I speak, therefore, not the language of exaggeration, but the words of truth and soberness, in saying that the future poli tical welfare and liberties of all men hang trem bling on the decision of the hour." Mr. Wilson then rose and presented in evidence certified copies of Andrew Johnson's oath on assuming the Presi dency ; the certificate being made by Chief Justice Chase, before whom the oath was prescribed. Also a copy of President Lincoln's nomination of Mr. Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War, and its confir mation on January 15, 1862, by the Senate, and a copy of President Johnson's Message to the Senate, December 12, 1867, giving his reasons for Stauton's removal when Grant was appointed ad interim, and the Senate's refusal, under the Tenure-of-Office Act, to confirm the removal, which closed the busi ness, and the Court adjourned till the next day. On March 31 the trial was resumed at noon, when the Managers commenced the examination of wit nesses after putting in evidence, the Senate Resolu tion of January 13, 1863, declaring Stanton Secre tary of War, the President's Message of February 21st, 1868, appointing Lorenzo Tho mas Secretar y of War ad interim, and again removing Stanton, the action of the Senate thereon, on certified ex , tracts from the Senate Journal, and a copy of Stan ton's commission as Secretary of War received from President Lincoln, all being proved by various clerks of the Chamber and of the Departments. The examination of witnesses went to show that Mr. Johnson had recognized the validity of the Tenure-of-Office Act by changing the form of com missions granted to persons in the Treasury Depart ment, so as to conform to the law. Messrs. Burd Van Horn, J. K. Moorhead, and Walter A. Bur leigh, testified to what transpired when Lorenzo Thomas demanded from Stanton possession of the War Department. Mr. Burleigh was examined to prove that General Thomas contemplated ejecting Mr. Stanton by force. To this testimony Mr. Stanbery on behalf of the President objected, as being inadmissable, on the ground that President Johnson had not authorized force to be used, and that what General Thomas may have said in the way of threats were irrelevant. The managers stated that their object was to show that Thomas intended to take possession of the War Department by force. The Chief Justice sustained Mr. Stan bery's objection, when Senator Charles Drake, of Missouri, denied his right to decide upon such points. The Chief Justice differing, and alleging his right to decide upon questions of evidence, de manded the opinion of the Court. A hot dispute followed, during which Mr. Chase called Senator Drake to order. Mr. Butler sustained the opinion of the Senator, suggesting a parallel between Lord Jeffreys and the Chief Justice. lie cited the case of Lord Stafford, in the reign of Charles IL, when the Commons objected to addressing the Lord High Steward as his grace or my lord, claiming and ob taining the right to address the House collectively as my lords. There was no recognition, he con tended, of the superior right of the presiding officer over other members, and that the English practice at impeachment trials was fur the presiding officer to submit questions of evidence directly to the Court. Some of the managers also argued in support of Senator Drake, and a motion was made to go into secret session, the votes cast being even, when Mr. Chase an nounced the motion carried, as the Chief Justice voted in the affirmative, at the same time vacat ing his seat and leading into the antechamber. For raged, Senator Sumner supporting Mr. a t 1 i n r d e e oltihoeurrs extremethe war 'tßepublicanshen Drake. It was first agreed that the question should be argued on an amendment of the following rule of trial as originally adopted :--" The presiding officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary and the presiding prepa rations in the Senate Cham, officer upon the trial shall irect all the forms of proceeding while the Senate are s i tt i ng f or th e pur pose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially p rovided for. The presiding officer may, in the first instance, submit to the Senate, without a division, all questions of q evidence and incidental questions; but the same shall, on the demand of one -fifth of the members present, be decided by yeas and nays." Senator Sumner proposed, in amendment, that the Chief Justice, not being a member of the Senate, had no right to vote on any question arising in the trial ; this was defeated by 26 to 22, when Senator Drake proposed another amendment, to the effect that the Chief Justice could not rule in questions of law, but that these questions should be submitted for the de cision of the Senate. A still larger majority defeated this; the votes being 27 to 20. Senator Sumner then proposed that all questions other than those of order should be submitted to a vote of the Senate, on which 25 voted on either side. The friends of the Chief Justice then brought forward the follow ing rule, which was adopted by 31 to 13 :—" The presiding officer of the Senate shall direct all neces sary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the presiding officer of the Senate shall direct all the forms or proceedings when the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for. And the presiding officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evi deuce and on incidental ques tions, which decision will stand as the judg ment cf the Senate for decision, or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the members o f the Senate." The Chief Justice took high ground, declaring that he could not consent to be a mere c yp her, and that if his right to act as judge was not upheld he would consider it hi s dut y to with draw from the trial. The victory of Mr. Chase is considered important, as showing the strong tendency of the Senate to rule fairly on the evidence, and not to permit the managers of Im peachment to dictate the course to the Court. 'The procedure is similar to that in ordinary criminal cases. The prosecution opens with a speech, fol lowed by testimony. Messrs. Bingletin and Wilson will examine the witnesses. Mr. Stanbery was to commence the defence, making the opening address, and the witnesses for the defence are to be cross-questioned by Messrs. and Butler. Mr. Everts, it is said, will close for the President, and after rebutting testimony is offered, Mr. Bingham will close for the prosecution. The President's counsel have summoned as witnesses general Rousseau, General Sherman, General Steadman, and others. General Rousseau is in Oregon, and cannot reach Washington before the Ist of May. The Managers assert that if these distant wit nesses are called they will adinit,what they are pro posed to prove, to gain time, considering delays dangerous. April I.—After the journal of pro ceeding had been read Senator Sumner again took up the subject of the Chief Justice's rote on the preceding day. He sent to the President's desk a written motion to this effect, that a portion of the minutes arising from the Chief Justice's vote be obliterated, such vote being in the judgment of the Senate without the authority of the Constitution of the United States, the presiding officer having no right to cast a vote on any question. This was negatived without debate by 27 to 21, 15 Republi can Senators voting with the majority. Mr. Bur leigh, delegate from Daeotah, was again placed on the stand, and questioned touching the conversation with General Lorenzo Thomas, Feb. 21, but the President's counsel objected to the question whether Thomas had informed Burleigh of his intention to take possession of the War-office by force. Mr. Stanbery observed that the question was not re levant to any of the charges. We have, he said, at last come into the domain of law, leaving behind questions of mere form and procedure. On the part of the Managers, Butler and Bingham took part in the argument, and Mr. Curtis aided Mr. Stanbery. The argument lasted long, and was directed to the point whether there was a conspiracy between the President and Thomas warranting the detail of the conversation of third parties, or whether the order for Thomas to take the War Office was mandatory, and could by Andrew John son be legally issued, the constitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Act entering largely into the argu ment. The question was eventually decided in the affirmative on the Chief Justice putting it to the vote, by 39 to 11. Mr. Burleigh was called, and said that on the evening of the 21st of February he went to see General Thomas at his residence. Thomas told him that he had been appointed Sec retary of War, ad interim, had gone to the Depart ment, demanded possession, and Stanton asked him if he would give him time to remove his papers. The witness understood Thomas to say that he had already issued orders as Secretary of War. He also said that he intended to take possession at ten o'clock. In reply to an inquiry by the witness, Thomas stated that he would use force to obtain possession if it were refused him. Butler asked the witness if he had any conversation with Thomas while he was acting as adjutant-general. Mr. Evarts inquired to what date the question applied. Mr. Butler said that the appointment to that office was made about a week before be attempted to gain possession of the War. Department. Mr. Evarts asked what was the purpose of the testi mony. Mr. Butler said that it was to show that General Thomas had attempted to seduce his brother officers from their duty, just as Absalom had sat at the gates and tried to draw off the people from their allegiance to King David. Mr. Evarts—" Do you intend to put Absalom into your question ?" Mr. Butler—" No, I use him as an illustration." (Laughter.) After a recess of fifteen minutes, Mr. Butler read the question which he proposed to put to the witness, as to what he had heard Thomas say to the clerks of the War-office, during the week prior to Feb. 21. Mr. Evarts objected on the ground of irrelevancy. Mr. Butler made a short reply, to which Mr. Evarts rejoined, denying that the ruling which permitted the introduction of the declaration made subsequently to February 21 allowed the pre sentation of the declarations made previous to that time. There had been no proof adduced in support of the aspersions and the vilifying remarks made about General Thomas, and they were uncalled for certainly at the present time. Mr. Bingham argued briefly in reply, and cited the authorities in support of the position of the managers. The Chief Justice ruled that the question could not be put, no evidence having been offered in proof of conspiracy before February 21. The question was submitted, and the yeas and nays resulted in the vote of 28 to 22, and the question was put. The witness had heard Thomas make an address to a number of the clerks in the War-office, about a week or ten days prior to February 21, in which he said that he intended to relax the harsh and arbitrary rules made by his predecessor, and, regarding the clerks as gentlemen, they could go out and come in when they pleased, if they were absent only a reasonable time. Mr. Butler asked if Mr. Stanton had acknowledged that the testi mony given by the witness before the House Com mittee was true ? but the question was objected to and withdrawn. Mr. Butler then asked if General Thomas had, since February 21, re-stated any por tion of his conversation with Mr. Burleigh, about breaking down the door of the War Department This was objected to by Mr. Everts, as were also several m odifications of the question, which was finally put as follows :—" Have yo u had any con versation since the first one and . since his appoint ment as Secretary of War, ad i nterim, wherein he has said anything about using force in getting into the War-office, or in any other way re-asserting his former conversation, and, if so, what he said?" The witness replied that he had asked General Thomas, last week why the performance promised had not come off. He answered that it was be cause he was arrested by the Marshal early in the morning ; otherwise he would have broken in the doors, &c. On the cross-examination by Mr. Stan bery, the witness said that he went to the depart ment on business with the adjutant-general. Gen. Thomas made the same address to each of four or five clerks as they came into office, that he would not hold them to strict accountability about coming to work precisely at nine o'clock, but that on re suming his position as adjutant - general he was disposed to relax somewhat the severe rules made. He should of course expect a faithful performance of their duties. He spoke only to employ& of his own department. Samuel Wilkeson was then called. He testified that he had known General Thomas six or seven years, had a conversation with him on the afternoon of February 21 at the War Department, in which Thomas said that since the a ffair had become public he felt free to talk about it without reserve. He then stated that he had demanded possession of the War-office, and Stanton had asked if time would be allowed him to remove his papers, which he (Thomas) granted. He ex pressed to the witness his intention to demand possession on the Monday following, and would, if necessary, call on the General of the Army for assistance, which he thought could not be refused. At Willard's Hotel, that evening, he reiterated the same intentions, except that he would carry them into effect the next Monday. He seemed to mean what he said. Cross-examined by Mr. Evarts—ls connected with the press. Thomas told him on Friday that he had issued an order to close the Department on Saturday. The witness did not know whether it was issued as Adjutant-General or as Secretary of War. On re-direct examination, the witness said that he had heard Thomas say that he claimed to be Secretary of War. George W. Karsener had known General Thomas many years; saw him at the levee of the President on the 9th inst., and said to him, " General, the eyes of Dela ware are upon you. The people ask you to stand firm." He replied that he intended to, and that in a short time he would kick that fellow out. He did not say who it was whom he intended to kick out, but the witness understood him to refer to Mr. Stanton. Cross-examined by Mr. Stanbery—Saw General Thomas the last time before in Newcastle, Dela ware. I did not speak to him then ; do not re ' , member when and where I ever spoke to him before ; did not come from Delaware to see Thomas. When in the east room I felt a desire to see him and the rest of the Cabinet, and being from the same State he wished to pay his respects to him. Thomas was pointed out to him by Mr. Tanner, and he introduced himself. The idea of kicking out did not come from the witness, who did not know whether he approved of the line of conduct of which Thomas spoke of taking. The witness com municated this conversation to Mr. Tanner that night, and to several others the next day ; among them was a Mr. Smith, from Delaware, whose name was not John, but William, and he came from the Brandywine. The witness was summoned before the committee about the 13th of March, and met General Thomas in the committee room. Mr. Butler—" Did Gen. T homas thereupon admit that what you had sworn to was truth ?" Objected to, and the Court adjourned at ten minutes past five, the Senate going into executive session. The evidence of this witness was given in the pecu liar dialect of the Delaware boys, and elicited shouts of laughter, both from the Senators and the occu pants of the gallery. April 2. —When the proceed ings commenced it was apparent that the trial was palling both on the Court and the public, for there was barely a quorum of the Senate, some thirty members of the House, and a thin assemblage in the galleries. Senator Drake commenced by moving to amend the rules which provide that iu all ques tions decisions shall be made without taking a vote, unless one-fifth of the Senators desire the roll called or the presiding officer, but as the Democrats ob jected the question was postponed. The first wit ness was Karsener, whose cross-examination was concluded, the President's counsel striving to show that he was one of Stanton's spies sent to Thomas for the purpose of getting up evidence, but in this they were not successful. Thomas W. Ferry, mem ber of the House from Michigan, in common with several other witnesses, testified to Thomas's acts and words in demanding the War Department from Mr. Stanton on Feb. 22, their evidence being read from notes, or repeated as if committed to memory from memoranda made on the spot, as if they had proceeded there to be able to testify in the trial they anticipated. At half-past 12 it suddenly dark ened, so that it became necessary to light the gas, and a tornado swept over the Capitol, clewing the benches of many nervous Senators. General Emory, commanding the Department of Washington, was called. He gave his evidence in a quiet, straightforward manner, but evidently not from a good memory. He was examined relative to a conversation in the White House ou the 22d February, wherein the President was accused of attempting to procure insubordination in the army. In several previous instances the President had questioned him on the distribution of troops in the department, and whether there ought not to be a larger force at 'Washington. He went by invitation through the private secretary on that day, and had an intereiew ; and, after discussing the strength of the force in the department, the mode of governing the army was brought up. " I told him," said the witness, " that under a recent order issued for the government of the army of the United States, founded on the law of Congress, all orders had to be transmitted through General Grant to the army, and in like manner all orders coming from Gen. Grant to any of his subordinate officers must necessarily come, if iu my department, through me. The Pre sident asked me ' What order do you refer t o ?' I replied, 6 Order No. 17 in the series of 1867.' He stated he would like to see the order, and a mes senger was despatched for it." The messenger having returned, and the President having been shown the order, witness testified :—" He took the order and read it, and observed, 'This is not in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, which makes me Commander-in- Chief, or with the terms of your commission.' I replied, That is the order which you have approved and issued to the army for our government,' or something to that effect. I cannot recollect the exact words, nor do I pretend to give the exact words of the President. li e said, lam to under stand that the President of the United States cannot give an order except through the General of the Army or through General Grant.' I said, in reply, That was my impression, and that was the opinion which the army entertained, and that I thought the army was on that subject a unit.' " General Emory also informed the President that he had taken the advice of a lawyer, who thought that he was bound to obey the order, Constitutional or not, and to this the President replied that the object of the law was evident, and the interview ended. Then the Managers handed into Court a copy of the order, also of Emory's commission and the order assigning him to the Department of Washington, and the order restoring Lorenzo Thomas to the office ef Adjutant-General, from which he had been for a long period suspended. The President's letter to General Grant, dated the 10th of February, and Grant's reply, were also put in as evidence. The President's letter was read, but the certificates of Cabinet officers were declined by the Senate. In reply to the objection of the Presi dent's counsel, unless all the correspondence were submitted, the Managers stated that they desired to show the President's declaration to prevent Stanton from resuming the duties of Secretary of War in de fiance of the Senate, they submitted the part only referring to that matter. The objection was over ruled by the Chief Justice, and, on a vote being taken, his ruling was sustained by the Senate, after long arguments and several objections being over ruled. The next document handed in was the order removing Stanton, and appointing Thomas ad inte rim Secretary of War. Colonel G. W. Wallace being examined, said that he solicited and obtained an interview with the President on the 23d Febru ary to get information of a brevet nomination re jected by the Senate, when the President inciden tally asked about changes in the force of the depart ment of Washington. William E. Chandler, for merly Assistant-Secretary of the Treasury, was next put on the stand. In reply to Mr. Butler's questions, he showed that money was drawn from the Treasury on warrants from the War Depart ment, that on the 30th of November last the Assistant-Secretaryship was not vacant. Here the testimony was objected to, and Mr. Butler an nounced his object in the examination was to prove how the President proposed to control the money of the Treasury and War Departments as charged in the Articles, that Edmund Cooper has been appointed Assistant-Secretary in Nov., 1867, that he exercised the duties of the office before legally appointed, that Mr. Cooper was the President's private secretary, and that the President intended to have a person in the post who would honour the requisitions made by Thomas as Secretary of War ad interim. An argument here again ensued, during which it tran spired that an assistant -secretary could not sign Treasury warrants unless he was acting as Secre tary of the Treasury in the absence of that officer, and then he signed as " Acting Secretary ;" but that on the 2d of March, 1867, a law was passed which allowed an assistant-secretary to sign war rants in certain cases, but it was always presumed to be with the consent of the Secretary of the Trea sury, and that officer always specially assigned an assistant-secretary to perform this duty. Th e ob jection to the testimony was sustained by 22 to 27, 16 Republicans voting in the negative with the Democrats. This decision compelled the Managers to abandon the proposed line of testimony. Chas. A. Tinker, in charge of the Washington telegraph office, testified that a telegram had come to that office from Governor Parsons, of Alabama, to the President, and that on January 17, 1867, the Pre sident sent the following reply : " United States Military Telegraph—Executive Office, Washington, D.C., Jan. 17, 1867. "lion. Lewis Parsons, Montgomery, Alabama.—What possible good can be obtained by reconsidering the con stitutional amendment ? I know of none in the present posture of affairs. I do not believe the people of the whole country will sustain any set of individuals in the attempt to change the whole character of onr Government by enabling acts in this way. 1 believe, on the contrary, that they will uphold all who have patriotism and courage to stand by the Constitution, and who place their con fidence in the people. There should bo no faltering on the part of those who are honest in the determination to sustain the several co-ordinate departments of tim Go vernment in accordance with its original design. (Signed) " ANDEEw JOHNSON." This testimony was also objected to, and General Butler urged that it was intended to support the 10th and 11th Articles charging the President with the design of obstructing the Government. To this it was replied that these charges referred to speeches, not telegrams, and after argument by counsel, the Senate voted to receive the testimony by 27 to 17, nine Republicans going with the minority. A Senator then moved that the Court adjourn, and Mr. Sumner exclaimed, 4 , I hope not !" and on the vote being taken the Chief Justice announced—" the ayes are 22, the nays are 22, the Chief Justice votes in the affirmative, so the motion is agreed to ;" and the loud laugh with which this was received drowned what Mr. Sumner said. After the recess this day, Mr. Stevens standing up, at tempted to step forward, and fell heavily on the floor of the Chamber. Some of the Managers came at once to his assistance and replaced him in his seat, and he went on writing, apparently not much shaken. April 3.—Oa the previous day there had been two or three hundred empty seats in the gallery, but on this, scarcely any one was there to be seen, and barely fifty Representatives followed the Alma gers to the bar. Sambo, who had been excluded while the trial was the fashion, now showed his black face and white teeth from the strangers' seats before so eagerly prized. The testimony was that of the reporters who were present at Cleveland and other places during the celebrated tour of the President, James B. Sheridan and 0. Cephlane. The first related to the great speech of August, 1866, in Washington, when Andrew John son said that Congress was " a body hanging on the verge of the Government." Testimony was tendered as to the ability of phonographic reporters to make verbatim reports, and also as to the man ner and details of reporting. Colonel Moore, pri vate secretary to the President, was cross-examined by Mr. Butler. He stated that he had corrected the notes of the speech in Washington of August, 1866. Butler asked how be dared to assume the great constitutional right of correcting the Presi dent's speeches. To this Mr. Curtis replied that it was a vestion of law, and Colonel Moore added that it was not by direction of the President that he had corrected the speech. The reporters could not positively swear that they had taken down all the words of the President in his speeches during the Western tour. At Cleveland there was great excitement among the people he addressed, and the President himself was agitated. They had as usual rounded some sentences and corrected grammatical blunders. Great anxiety is felt at Washington to ascertain how the Senators will vote. There are a large number of Republican Senators who are held to be quite safe and sound by the Radicals, but the voting of others on the ob jections raised, and ou questions which have hitherto come up, has caused considerable uneasiness among the party. Joseph S. F owler, of Tennessee; F. T. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey ; William P. Fessenden, of Maine; Lyman Trumbull, of Eli , nois ; George IL Williams, of Oregon ; F. G. Van Winkle, of West Virginia ; and William Sprague, of Rhode Island, have as yet cast their votes so r,4 to favour the President's side, and should these seven vote in the same way when the final question comes up, the President will stand victor in this great battle, for seven Republicans acting with the Democratic twelve will be upwards of the third. Senator James llarlem, of lowa, is in his State, but will be back in time to vote ; Yates, of Illinois, Rc publican, and Saulisbury, of Delaware, Democrat, have been absent half the time from the trial, but they will also vote. As the evidence and argu ments are officially reportel and printed in the Globe, those absent can make themselves ac quainted with all that transpires. TRIAL OF LORD CARDIGAN. The death of the Earl of Cardigan has revived the memory of his famous trial It is the only occz , - sion on which a peer has been arraigned for felony during the present century. The charge agair Lord Cardigan was, that he had, on Sept. 12, 1840, fought a duel with Captain Tuckett on Wimbleeo.l Common. Technically the crime was shooting w th intent to murder, an offence rendered capital by 1 Vic. c. 85. Being entitled to be tried by his peers, the accused appeared at the bar of the House of Lords on February 16, 1841. The scene was an imposing one. Princes, peers, peeresses, ambassadors, and a glittering throng gathered ther3 to form part, or to witness the proceedings, of that High Court. It was a gcodly and exciting pageant —for a peer's life was in danger; but the riFk va3 not great, for the tribunal was sympathetic ; ane, even if convicted, the accused could, it was said, crave in aid the 1 Edw. 1 c. 12, which allowed pm nation for felony to a peer as a clerk eonvic although he could not read. The stately Lord Denman was Lord High Steward ; Sir John Jampell, as Attorney-General, prosecuted ; and Sir William Follett defended. The prosecuti - -.5 counsel seemed fully to appreciate the views of those whom he addresed, for according to him, The charge against the noble prisoner at the bar does not imply any degree of moral turpitude, and if he should be found guilty, the conviction will re flect no discredit upon the illustrious order to which he belongs." Whilst the Attorney-General seemed almost indifferent to the result of the trial, Si'? William Follet was anxious even to irritability. Ire knew that he had but one point to rely on, and ) that he directed his whole attention. Fortunatelf for Lord Cardigan the Christian name of Captain Tuckett was not a simple one : it was Harvey Gar nett Phipps. The indictment, therefore, set out a charge of shooting at Ilarvey Garnett Phipps Tuc kett ; and it was necessary to prove that the person shot at bore those names. It was clearly proved tint Lord Cardigan shot at Captain Tuckett, for he him self stated that he had done so. It was also estab lished that the Captain Tuckett shot at was Captain Harvey Tuckett, formerly of the 11th Light Dra goons. Further, it was proved that the nam e of Captain Tuckett, formerly of the 11th Light Dra goons, was Harvey Garnett Phipps. But this did not suffice, for the officer shot at may not have borne the name of Garnett Phipps, and there might have been two Captain Tucketts on half-pay in the 11th Dragoons. And so the white staff of High Steward was broken, and the peers of Great Britain and Ireland cheerfully laid their hands on their hearts and said that James Thomas, Earl of Cardigan, was not guilty on their honour. But the Duke of Cleveland seemed to be scarcely able to understand our great principles of justice, and said, bowing low, that upon his honour the prisoner was not guilty legally. Those who played the principal parts in that day's trial—accused, High Steward, and counsel—have all passed away ; and before them went the possibility of justice being evaded by such a technical defence as that above recorded. The tale at the time went, that, in fear of forfeiture of his lands, Lord Cardigan, the dal before his trial, surrendered to trustees to certain uses his copyhold estates. When acquitted he de sired his own again. Tho lands were resurrenderedl but the fines were heavy—some said £BO,OOO. 1 9 however, know not if this be true.—Once a Week. The TVall Street Journal announces that the Adams Express Company will pay a dividend of fiv e dollars per share on April 30th next, and tho Panama Railroad Company their usual quarterly dividend of six per cent., with a probable extra cash dividend of 20 por cent• The interest on the bonds and stocks of the city no d county of New York, due on May 1, will bo paid on day, at the National Broadway Bank ; and on the bonds of the New York and New Haven Railroad Company, due on April 1, on presentation at the office of the company, or at the National Bank of the Republic, New York. [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway's Pills aro the most in repute for curing the multifarious maladies which attack humanity when wet or cold weather gives place to more genial temperatures. In short these pills afford relief to, if they fail of being au absolute remedy for, all the (1 0 ' turbances of circulation, digestion, and nervous energy which at times oppress a vast portion of the populatToo; Under the wholesomely purifying and strengthening powers exerted by these excellent pills the tongue Lecoun clean, the appetite improves, di g estion is quickened, on' .. assimilation is rendered perfect. Holloway's medicine Po; ei senses the highly estimable pr o pertyof cleansing the wil?',„ mass of blood, which, in its renovated condition, Woo' purity, strength, and vigour to every tissue of the body- Births. DATIXLEY—On the 21st inst., at Cobham Hall, Kent, th e Countess of Darnley, of a daughter. Eimx—On the 21st inst., at Gotgrave Place, Notts, th e Hon. Mrs. 11. Henley Eden, of a son. JONES—On the 21st iust. ' at Downside, Epson), the wife of Charles Collier Jones, Esq., of a daughtar. - Marriages. CARTWRIGHT—MowEn—On the 21st inst., at St. 1 ) 3 01.61 ,; Rusthall, Cornwallis R. .Cartwright, Esq., of Sunb ur 'f House, Tunbridgo-Wells, to Jane, eldest daughtor Bishop and Mrs. `Tower, of 9, Nevill Place, Tunbridg e- Awns. TRACY—HOARE - On the 21st inst., at St. John's Churc' b ,' Torquay, Alfred Ifanbury Tracy, third son of the ht;o- Lord Sudeley, to Agnes Jane, eldest daughter of the /3 ' Henry J. Hoare, Esq., of Morden Lodge, Surrey. .Deaths. DAGG—On the 21st inst., at Oxton, Birkenhead, CAP' A. Dagg, Adjutant on the Staff, aged 43. of FORRESTT -On the 20th iust., Thomas Forrestt, ES'F' Lin - whom° and Waustead, aged 64. FULLER - On the 19th inst., at Jersey, Lieut.-Col. Fuller, C. 8., late of Windsor, aged 81. LEGER —On the 20th inst., at 42, Charles-street, Berl:el:1'i square, Major John St. Leger, late of the 14 t h Lig • , Dragoons, aged 68. WooD—On the 21st inst., at Rivcrliall Place, B Sq.' Fianci Wood, Bart. agtid 34. WESLEY— s On the 19th , inst., at Ventnor, Mary, dol..,uter of Lieut.-Gen. Sir R. Wesley, K.G.8., aged 24. Londm Printed and Published by WILLIAM. AND S ''' . 1 ;1. of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tull Sox Oilce, N ,f qtr ind, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the C0u3.1 BliddleseX.—Thursday, April 23, 1868. 1., R Prize Ilie - 2 Oh narfE his t nrtn: ?lim n !teen the Louie a ,L N PPe it 1- to bii; is it i '7 b ii Pi, Mr. Affts 1 ‘" , is, Mi, Rigl nifi c LIN of II -____. T 1 havb by for I, Solo 1%1 a.nd • Stra: or ur hood atty. aqu a Rot, I' d for tion tram Si 8 ,P09, os. St 4 tal all ( 'his ho tl y for euth Soil and fine, With ; Er 1 416 stkrm lij \ Yeii i Ile ac heB,' ll ford Whi , + ro r, flab Of 1 v 011 li Itmi T L .., Nic "nt th e 1 b e, P er , ; the