The Sun.
London, England, 1867-11-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 26, 1867.

nificantly enough, while they proclaim an inde-
finite variety of species, boldly, and in the face of
all nature, deny the existence of distinction of race.
They surely could never have made a study of the
horse and his countless varieties, and it is evident
that none of them ever assisted at a dog-show at
London, Hamburg, or Munich. According to their
teaching there are as many distinct species as there
are races or even families of men; and th's they
still continue to assert in spite of all the arguments
of Blumenbach, whom they have found it conve-
nient to ignore, but whom they have not attempted
to refute. The teaching of the highest authorities
goes directly against the American sophists. They
tell us that, just as in the animal kingdom and
amongst plants there is a unity of species and a
diversity of race, so is it also the case with man.
The general consent is well summed up in the
words of Muller—" The various races of men,"
he says, " are forms of one identical species
which is prolific and perpetuates itself by gene-
ration. They are not species of a genus ; for if
they were these bastards would not beget chil-
dren." Neither Morton nor Vogt, nor any other
writer with whom we are acquainted, has been,
able to break the force of this argument against
the multiplicity of human species—namely, that
throughout the vast animal world the mixing of
two distinct species has never yet been known to
produce creatures which could propagate them-
selves. At the very most there are instances of
one reproduction, but after that procreation has
invariably ceased. The American school has so far
perceived the destructive force of this argument,
that instead of attempting to refute it they have
endeavoured, by boldness of assertion, to bend it
over to their side. They tell us that with regard
to mankind a mixture of two races eventually
issues in barrenness. But the facts of the case go
in just the opposite direction. The children of
European and Philippine parents turn out fine ro-
bust men. The Mulatto is not only proverbially
prolific and possessed of considerable personal
beauty, but moreover, by his talents and his culture
is capable of raising himself to a distinguished
position in society. The inhabitants of Mexico
and the Philippines of Nicaragua and Paraguay
of New Granda and Curagao, alone offer sufficient
contradiction to the American theory. Then an-
other proof of the oneness of the species consists
in the similarity of conformation between those
races which are the widest apart. The organiza-
tion of all is alike. The distinctions which sepa-
rate race from race are almost entirely confined to
the pelvis and the skull. Nor do the variations in
the latter modify to any great degree the facial
angle. It ranges between 90 and 75 degs., and
never falls below 75 in men, while in the monkey
tribe it fluctuates between 30 and 64 degs., and has
never been known to exceed 65 degs. Then the
teeth in all men in number and general conforma-
tion is identical. What human being ever pos-
sessed a head and tusks like the chimpanzee and
the gorilla ? While the difference between the
brain of a European and a Hottentot, according
to Tiedeman's and IVagner's experiments, is
scarcely discernible, that of the monkey is altogether
different. So with regard to the internal relation
of the human family. Reason, senses, language,
religion, are common to all, varying according to
culture and climate and development. Burton
speaks of black women with Grecian profiles. Blu-
menbach and Tiedeman speak of educated and even
learned negroes—for instance, Poussaint Louver-
ture and Ira Aldridge. As to colour, Voltaire may
have perpetrated a witticism, but his wit was not
very wise. He might have remembered that the
old saying, nimium ne crede colori, is not without its
truth. To divide mankind into species according
to their colour would create not only inconveniences
but laughable absurdities. Were such a thing
done, Richardson, the traveller, would rejoice in
himself alone being of at least two different spe-
cies ; for he tells 113 that when he left Ghadames
he was of a rosy tint, " but now," he says, "I am
yellow, like these men." Barth would enjoy the
same privilege. It is known to all travellers that
Europeans who dwell any considerable time in
Guinea become a copper colour ; in Egypt they
take a smutty cast, and in Abyssinia they turn
brown. Arabs of North Arabia are compara-
tively fair; in Mecca they are of a yellowish
brown ; in the Desert their head is covered with
wool, and in Nubia they become shining and black
as jet. Europeans living in the tropics become
olive, and in Africa they turn quite brown. Any
one who will give himself the trouble to look at a
Portuguese who has just come from a life on the
coast of Africa, will at once perceive that colour
is not ruled by difference of species, but by the in-
fluence of the sun and of the atmosphere. Some-
times the vastness of the population of the earth
is offered as an objection to the possibility of man's
origin in Adam. Such as make it cannot fully
realize the results of geometrical progression. In
1589 a few Englishmen, with four women, were
shipwrecked and cast upon an uninhabited island.
In eighty years they multiplied to 12,000 men.
Thum reckons that in 425 years 800,000,000 of
men would be produced. One man and woman
with their four children, multiplying at the rate
of four to each pair, in a thousand years would
double the population of the earth. This becomes
more intelligible when we recollect that those
countless herds of cattle which are now spread
hill and dale in Paraguay and Buenos Ayres are all
descended from one solitary bull and a few cows
left there by Salagar in 1546. In a word, far from
true science based upon severe induction being
hostile in its results to the teachings of religion,
the more it is studied, and the more scientific the
methods employed, so much the more triumphantly
do they testify to the harmony which must exist
between truth and truth, between science and re-
ligion. Should the reader feel tempted to verify
the facts brought forward in this article, we can
refer him to Dr. Hettinger's learned " Apologie
des Christenthams."— Westminster Gazette.

fabrics 5 cents per lb., of cotton produced. Mr.
STEVENS calculates this would be a protection
of upwards 10 cents a yard, which would argue
great want of skill and enterprise in the American
manufacturer if he did not monopolise the cotton
market of the world. And having first destroyed
the foreign manufacture the "garrulous old man"
then again reverts to the product of the tax by
which the inhabitants of the United States would
be relieved by the sum levied on foreigners of over
$60,000,000. There is an old saying which Mr.
STEVENS has forgotten, but which nurses often
tell children, " that they cannot eat their pudding,
and have it." Here is a great American statesman first
annihilating the foreign manufacture of cotton, and
at the same time adding a third to the export of the
staple, which must, of course, be worked by the
ruined factories, and levying an enormous sum as a
tax on the trade over whose destruction he is chuck-
ling. Absurd, however, as is this blunder, it is
rational when compared with the argument by
which he arrives at the annihilation of European
cotton industry. An export duty is always paid by
the producer. Cotton in Liverpool, the market
which rules all others, sells not at the price fixed by the
producer, but at that which it can command. While
Mr. STEVENS was writing, the very staple which
formed his subject was selling on the flags of the
Liverpool Exchange at a ruinous loss to the
Southern planter. Instead of leaving the producer a
profit on which the United States might have levied
an export tax, we doubt at this moment whether it
repays him the cost of the labour expended. If the
United States levied the tax proposed by Mr.
STEVENS the cotton trade would pass for ever from
American hands, and great would be the rejoicing
in India and in Egypt. But presuming that Mr.
STEVENS was right, instead of wrong, in supposing
that the Southern States had a monopoly of cotton
production, the tax he proposes would still be levied
on the producer. He is aware, as his own practice has
shown, that men get as much as they can for what
they have to sell. It is no business of the
purchaser what the cost has been. He simply
buys at the lowest price at which the article re-
quired can be purchased. Can Mr. STEVENS sup-
pose that the broker acting for the Southern planter
does not now get as high a price as the article can
fetch, yet the price, if we are right, does not actually
pay the cost of production. Could he screw it up,
he does so without any spur of export duty, put-
ting the balance of profit in bis pocket. If he
could sell cotton against its weight in gold, that
would be the price, and no less. But this would
be quite independent of the cost of the staple. If
the United States charged as an export duty its
weight in silver, it would be so much out of the
planter's profit, but it would add nothing to the
price in Liverpool, which is simply the most the
man can get. But if the article, instead of leaving
a vast margin of profit, leaves little or none, the
producer is crushed by an export duty which
under such circumstances, he cannot pay. Ac-
cording to Mr. STEVENS the planter fixes the
price, telling the purchaser, we suppose, that
the United States, having added an export duty
of three cents, he has raised the price of Ameri-
can cotton to meet this lid. per lb. Now
the gist of what we say is, that if he could do this
he would not now be selling cotton at a loss, nor
wait till the duty was levied to raise the price,
nor confine himself to the amount of the tax,
but run it up to the extreme he could get. Poor
THAD. STEVENS then expresses his wonder that
not only the representatives of the Mississippi Valley
resisted his scheme, but, more amazing still, the
manufacturers of New England. We have touched
on a single subject of Mr. STEVENS'S letter, as it
most readily shows the obvious blunders of which
he may be capable. Hence we may learn the value
of his argument in favour of paying the National
Debt in greenbacks. Well might Mr. STEVENS
ask, " What is money ?" for it is clear he has but
a mild idea. Money means stamped coin ; a dollar
is defined by the laws of the United States as so
many grains of gold. When the Government bor-
rowed, it handed to the lenders promises to pay so
many dollars—that is, a certain weight in gold in
a specified time, and until then guaranteed a certain I
semi-annual interest. Here was a specifil contract.
But Mr. STEVENS'S alleging that money is not
stamped coin, but anything the law makes it, states
that the Government can pay its debt by substi-
tuting for the interest-bearing bond, another paper
bearing no interest at all. After detailing the
great difficulties he experienced as chairman of a
committee in raising loans after the issue of the first
two or three, he goes on to sneer at the " sweet
communion between Jew and Gentile, at the SHA-
DRACIIS, AIESHACIIS, and ABEDNEGOS, at the
European capitalists, the ROTHSCHILDS, GOLD-
SMITHS, and the other money-dealers, from whom
his Government eventually obtained the necessary
funds. How was it the United States found any
difficulty in borrowing ? Because the stability
of the Government was then doubted. Because the
because a debt might be
Statesgreat
iwarnto
ftrhaegnme
n tsandprogressing might have split the
incurred which the nation, impatient of taxation,
might repudiate. The United States was triumph-
ant, the Union more strongly cemented, and, so
far, those who had faith enough in the future of
the United States to advance it money have been
right, and have reaped the benefit. Now, however,
such upright statesmen as THADDEUS STEVENS uses
this very success as an argument against the bloated
capitalists by whose money the United States was
enabled to carry on the war that preserved the
Union. But why argue against the childish theories
of a sick old man, who tells his own moral prin-
ciples in this simple story :—" A constituent of mine,
within two months of the adjournment of the Con-
gress that passed this law, informed me that he had
guaranteed to a gentleman in Philadelphia before
the passage of the law a judgment of $28,000 ex-
pressly payable in gold. The creditor demanded
the money. It was then worth about two or three
times its nominal value. He went to him and ten-
dered the amount in greenbacks. He refused to
accept, and issued execution, and the Court set it
aside, and compelled him to take the lawful money
of the United States which had been offered to him.
Whether this transaction was a moral or immoral
one every gentleman must judge for himself, and will
judge according to his position. If a man be dealing
for himself with his own money, I can understand
his right to bestow the half or the whole of the sum
upon his creditors either under the fancy of gene-
rosity or honour. But when he is acting as trustee
for others, and paying out the money of cestui que
trusts and wards, it seems to me there may be in
morals, although not in law, a question about the
difference." The poor old gentleman writes bit-
terly, and somewhat idiotically in the opening
paragraphs of his letter. He knows that he " will
incur sharp and frivolous criticism from able editors,
whose age is scarcely more than 80 years, and who
will probably discover in my answer evidence of
old age and decaying intellectual powers. Of all
this I am myself conscious, and only regret the pain
which it gives those youthful gentlemen to make
such delicate suggestions." Now, if Mr. STEVENS
does not accept the decaying intellectual powers,
the alternative is one we have no wish to apply to
a sturdy old statesman who has manfully fought
out his battle in life. It must be painfully evident
to all who ever respected the man who led in Con-
gress, that the comments on the above story show
a moral obliquity. There can be no doubt at all
about the morality of the transaction, except,
perhaps, among professed thieves, who openly
assert their right to take who have the power,
and to keep who can. Mr. STEVENS'S con
stituent was a barefaced and impudent swindler;
and the most amazing part of the story is the auda-
city of the scoundrel in boasting of his villany to
Jr. STEVENS. The man who can defend or in any
way justify such a transaction is a fit advocate for
repudiation.— Anglo-American Times.

•
IADTERTISEMENT.I - Holloway's Pills. With the
darkening days and changing temperatures the digestion
becomes impaired, the liver disordered, and the mind dis-
pondent, unless the cause of the irregularity be expelled
from the blood and body by an alterative like these pills.
They go directly to the source of the evil, thrust out all
impurities from the circulation, reduce distempered organs
to their natural state, and correct all defective or contami-
nated secretions. Such easy moans of instituting health,
strength, and cheerfulness should be in the possession of
all whose stomachs are weak, whose minds are much
harassed, or whose brains are overworked. Holloway's is
essentially a blood-tempering medicine, whereby its in-
fluence reaching the remotest fibre of the pain effects a
universal good, . • . •

CHRONIC PAUPERISM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE " WESTMINSTER GAZETTE."

SlR,—The Weseminster Gazette of November 2,
contains an able article on a subject of momentous
importance—" Chronic Pauperism." It would' be
an ungracious, and, I hope, a vain attempt, to
endeavour to discourage the writer of that article
in the praiseworthy efforts he is making, in so bold
and exemplary a manner, to arouse the nation to
,4 grapple with an evil from which there is no escape,
and which must be faced." So far from wishing to
discourage him, I bid him God speed, and would
do all that in me lies to aid his exertions. Ile will
not, I hope, accuse me of any discouraging inten-
tion if I suggest that possibly he may not have
considered, in its full extent, the enormous diffi-
culty of the subject. I remember hearing, several
years ago, that some wealthy and benevolent in-
dividual, who then mourned over the chronic
pauperism of the country, had offered the sum of
£5OO, to be awarded by competent judges, to any
writer who should account for the fact, which he
assumed, that wealth implies poverty, and that in
the richest countries the direst distress is to be
found. Ido not vouch for the precise words, but
this was the sense of the proposal. As may be sup-
posed, a sum of £5OO would call out many an essay.
But I perfectly remember hearing that the sum
was never paid, the judges declaring that every
essay had utterly failed to deserve it. If then, to
every peculiar circumstance named by our author,
as well as to the religious aspect of the affair, is to
be added the fact that, under the most favourable
circumstances, exactly in proportion to the wealth
of a nation there is a tendency to poverty, one gets
a glimpse of the enormous difficulty of the task to
which we are invited. Of the fact that there is a
degree of squalid poverty in England unknown
elsewhere there cannot, in my mind, be a question.
At the same time, we must be well aware that the
fact is by no means universally admitted. Many,
on the contrary, will be found stoutly io deny it.
Whether from the self-complacency which is so
marked a feature in the character of John Bull,
or from his ignorance of other countries, or from
both causes combined, certain it is that the feel-
ing of very many amongst us is, that English
paupers are as superior to all other paupers as
every thing in England is to every thing every-
where else. But never was mistake more entire.
I remember spending a day, some years ago, in
Paris with the late lamented Baron Alderson. I
spent the day with him by appointment, in order
to meet a mutual friend, who had engaged to ac-
company him into the most abject scenes of poverty
in that great metropolis. Our friend, an English
convent, resident for many years in Paris, was
an active member of the Society of St. Vincent de
Paul, and a constant visitor in the most wretched
districts of the town. He came, at Baron Alder-
son's expressed desire, to show him the lowest
points which misery had reached. We spent several
hours in the investigation, and were introduced,
no doubt, into scenes of great suffering and desti-
tution. But I well remember how often Baron
Alderson requested that he might be shown abodes
of still deeper poverty. When assured that he
had seen the worst, his verdict was that he could
state, from actual experience, that there was a de-
gree of destitution and degradation in London
utterly unknown in Paris. Again, it was my lot,
in days long past, to accompany some friends from
the Continent on their first visit to London. I
spent several interesting days in lionizing them
about the town. It was the height of the season,
and our principal thoroughfares were thronged
with equipages such as no other city on earth can
parallel. But there was another side to the picture
which we English are apt to overlook, but which
my friends were not slow to discover, and to which
they frequently called my attention. As we passed
down Regent-street, or Bond-street, I was often
asked to cast my eye upon some gaunt spectacle
of misery which dared to stalk about in grim
contrast to the splendid pageant which was passing
by. I have learned a lesson from those few days.
I have often pondered on them during a lengthened
residence in a third-rate, but most happy Conti-
nental kingdom, where the gorgeous magnificence,
and the intense misery of London, are alike un-
known. Often, too, as I now pass along our crowded
streets, I remember, and remember it to stamp it
with my full concurrence, the conclusion come to
by my friends as the result of their visit to London,
that they did not know which had most astonished
them, its magnificence or its misery.
The fact, then, conceded, how is it to be met ?
What is to be done ? How is this gigantic evil,
which, if increased beyond a certain point, must
be our ruin, to be faced? This is the question of
questions. Bic labor hoc opus est. Were I com-
petent to give an answer, I feel, sir, that I must
take an over-weaning view of your good nature
were I to count on your affording me space for
my lucubrations. I feel, however, earnestly anxious
on this subject, and I express the hope, in all sim-
plicity, that abler pens than mine may challenge
a space in your columns, and occupy it with a
power to which I cannot aspire.

Just, however, to break ground in this great
and momentous field I single out one point. At
first sight it may appear a small one ; but ample
experience justifies me in asserting my conviction
that the more it is examined the more wide-spread
and important will be found its bearing on this
great question. I allude to the case of our do-
mestic servants. It would astonish any one who
has spent no time—happy for us if we spent more
—in visiting the poor, how large an influence, both
by their numbers, and still more by their habits
of life, those who have once been servants exercise
on the poverty which surrounds them. I venture
to say that no one who has not made the matter
a subject of special observation would believe,
beforehand, what a large proportion of our poor
have once been in the service of those above them.
And yet a moment's consideration might prepare
them for the fact. Look round at the countless
number of houses in this vast metropolis where
servants are employed. Remember, too, that the
good old days, which some of us can recollect, have
well nigh passed away, when it was a servant's
pride to have grown grey in the service of his or
her employer, when as children we loved to see in
the chimney-corner some venerable old figure who
talked to us of our grandfathers or great grand-
fathers. The family compact now-a-days seems to
be a short sojourn—extravagant indulgence—pay-
ment as long as you are able to work hard—and the
moment that, from whim on one side, or insolence
on the other, either party is dissatisfied, let us part
never to meet again. The numbers, therefore, who
under such a system pass from comfortable abodes
into the lanes and alleys of our great cities is
enormous. And not only so, but of all poor the
most hopelessly poor are old servants. Such was
my experience during several bitter years spent as
the Protestant incumbent of an important parish
containing upwards of 12,000 souls. Whenever I
entered an abode where misery sat enthroned amidst
emblems of more than usual despair—an abode
whence a husband, on returning home, would be
sure to turn away sickened and appalled to seek
refuge in the nearest gin palace, I feel confident
that in the mistress of that dreary chamber it was
an even chance that I saw one who had been once
a servant. The utter appearance of desolation,
the inability to make an effort, the revolting mix-
ture of faded bed ornaments with rags which no
darning needle had ever attempted to repair, these
have often told me their tale. Oftentimes have
my suspicions resulted in despairing descriptions
of luxurious mansions where, in past days, luxury
and extravagance were the rule both for employers
and employed. We have, then, in the midst of us
a class whose numbers are incalculable, whose ex-
travagance when momentary assistance is afforded,
whose despair when want arrives, exert the most
baneful influence, in a thousand ways, on the
surrounding population. And whose is the fault?
The fault, if not wholly, mainly of employers. It
is a sad and solemn reflection for the rich that the
class which comes into nearest contact with them is,
perhaps, the very worst in the community. We
too often ruin our servants. We take many of
them from the humblest abodes and introduce them
at once to habits of reckless and uncontrolled
extravagance. We wonder at the result, and

amuse ourselves with the racy utterances and
whimsical portraits of a flunkeyism which is the
creature of our own hands. And truth is often
stranger than these fictions. If we cannot always,
from the realities of daily life, equal the wit of
Punch, we can, at all events, frequently adduce
facts which come up to or go beyond any of his
fanciful representations. I knew an instance the
other day myself of a poor woman to whom, from
sheer charity, employment was given in order to
rescue her from utter destitution. The spell of old
age of service was upon her. Sne indignantly threw
up her means of subsistence, because on one
occasion salt meat formed the staple of her repast,
and because on another there was no pudding after
dinner. For this fact I pledge myself, and for this,
further, that the last words uttered by this mis-
guided woman, on indignantly throwing up her
livelihood, were, that accustomed as she was at
home to pudding after dinner, she could not pos-
sibly serve where it was not supplied ! A very
short time and she was begging at the door on
which she had turned her back. Punch may
easily furnish pictures of greater wit than this,
but I defy him to go beyond it in extravagance.
And here I crave Punch's pardon for a moment. I
have often, I own, smiled—as who can fail to do?
—at his masterly sketches, and cannot wonder at
his purveying for so productive a market. But,
nevertheless, I cannot but lament that one of our
most crying evils—one from which all suffer and
against which all protest—one which involves, I
fear, great guilt, and beyond a doubt involves
deep misery, should be turned into one of the
surest and readiest sources of popular amusement.
What, then, is to be done A mighty work is here
in this one department. Many will turn aside
from it as impracticable. And yet if so—if this
one evil presents overwhelming difficulties, what
are we to say of those which we are told we must
face, and whose name is legion ? Towards the
amelioration of chronic pauperism one essential
step—if there be a shadow of reason in what I
have thus feebly urged—is the amelioration of
the condition of our servants. To effect this we
must review our whole position, and submit to
learn lessons from the past. We must define
anew the relations which ought to subsist between
masters and servants. We must sit at the feet
of our grandmothers, and learn how, in the good
old time, they managed their households.
We must take our stand, and try to recall
the days when the dietary and the dress,
especially, of under-servants were the sub-
jects of strict regulation when Master and
Mistress, and not Mr. and Mrs. A. or B.—were
the respected names by which the heads of a family
were designated. The same causes will once more
produce the same effects. Our servants will ruin
their place. Instead of our maid-servants aping
their mistresses, if not trying to eclipse them, in
dress and habits of self-indulgence, their very
costume will mark their dependent condition.
Their dietary, plain but ample, will present some
difference between their table and that of those
they serve. Upper servants will catch a new spirit
and exercise a healthy influence on the lower
ranks of the establishment. Kindnesses which,
under our present system, are grumbled at as in-
sufficient, will sink into grateful hearts. The aim
and pride of servants will be to keep their places,
and to remain connected with those whose discipline
and tenderness combined have trained them to
habits of order, obedience, and attachment. Houses
will become abodes of friends observing strictly the
post to which Providence has called them, instead
of abodes in which hard taskmasters on the one
hand, and conspirators against their authority on
the other, are herded under the same roof. When
circumstances oblige servants to seek homes of
their own, they will enter them better members of
society and not worse, in virtue of their previous
connection with the rich. Neighbours will have
them as well-ordered links between the upper and
the lower classes, as the heads of economical, tidy,
and virtuous homes, and not, as at present, as the
victims of a poverty peculiar to themselves. Their
homes will no longer be the watchwords of
wretchedness, disaffection, and disorder, but will
be pointed out as examples of cleanliness, comfort,
and decorum.—l am, sir, your very faithful

servant,

London, Nov. 13.

J. IL IV.

7HE CONDITION OF AUSTRIA.

A letter from Vienna, dated Nov. 15, says :—The
political and social condition of Austria is at the
present moment so decomposed, so entirely rotten,
that a thinking man, truly attached to the land
and the dynasty, can only with difficulty and
with much reluctance bring himself openly to dis-
cuss the subject. But since I must speak my mind,
I will do so simply and honestly, that those of
your readers who are not so well acquainted
with the state of things here may be enabled to
form a correct opinion of our present unenviable
condition. To-day I will confine myself to the
discussion of the Concordat question. The ad-
dress of the bishops and the answer of the
Emperor, has brought this conflict to a point.
There are some respectable Catholics who think
the bishops would have acted wiser to have kept
silent ; the reasons adduced for this opinion have
failed to convince me ; but that the Emperor
would have done well to have kept silent, or,
better still, to have given quite a different answer,
of that I have never had the slightest doubt. We
are embarked in the Revolution, if as yet only
latent—if, as the Ilistonsch-Politische Bleitter of
Munich lately expressed it, the dominant Radi-
calism will be for awhile content with climbing to
the roof-top of our old monarchy over the servile
backs of the Ministers, Baron Beust and Count
Audrassy. The latent Revolution rules here, and
an open Revolution would long since have broken
out in the streets of Vienna, had not our poor
Emperor confided the Government to the foreign
Saxon Baron, who, to make use again of a very
telling expression of the Historich-Politische Bleitter,
jumps into the water, to fetch and carry at the
call of the leading Jewish journals. To such a
pass is it come in Vienna, that such a palliative '
can be snatched at as a means of rescue from
worse things. Had our Emperor as much politi-
cal as military courage, he would not have turned
out of his path to avoid the risk of a Vienna street
Revolution. He is now, indeed, bound hand and
foot ; the Minister domineers over the Emperor, the
Chamber domineers over the Minister, and the
Chamber, in turn, is swamped and domineered
over by the revolutionary Jews, the mob, and the
half-educated youth, to whom Professor Arndts, in
the teeth of their tumultuous bearing, has just read
a lesson on boy-government. He has suddenly be-
come as unpopular a professor as he had before
been popular. As a member of the Upper
House he had the courage to present addresses in
favour of the Concordat. In this chaotic state of
things the bishops of Austria, or, rather, those
of the western half of the old empire, have had
the courage to speak the truth on the subject of the
Concordat—the whole truth, the overpowering
truth, bright and full as the sun at midday—ex-
posing the falsehoods with which the very air here
is, as it were, full as with a swarm of noxious
insects. This brings to my mind the following
saying of our Holy Father, Pius IX., spoken in
very similar circumstances :—" The greatest evil
of our times is the unprecedented growth and
power of falsehood. This might closes around me
day by day in ever changing form, and I have
no weapon to oppose to it but that of the pure
and simple truth." The bishops of Austria have
followed the example of this great Pope. I trust
in God that sooner or later this, the only practical
and correct path, will lead to victory. But it is
also true that an immediate success was not to
be expected. Nor was it to be looked for that the
Emperor all at once should find the courage to
oppose his ',veto to the present Ministry, which
most certainly is now doing the bidding of the
Revolution. The Emperor reproaches the bishops
with not taking sufficiently into consideration his
quality of constitutional sovereign ; apparently the
Emperor meant to indicate by these words that he
was a monarch fettered by the Revolution. For
his quality of constitutional sovereign could not
hinder bin firm dismisi g hip Minihter) much less

from dissolving the present, without doubt, Mega
Chamber. But, as a monarch robbed by the Revo-
lution of all freedom of action, the Emperor could
not claim any special consideration on the part
of the bishops; while, on the other side, it be•
hoved the bishops to defend the most sacred
terests of the Church and of the Empire. He who
places himself at the side of the Revolution_ 10
identifies himself with it—he can only impute to
himself the consequences of his own deeds.
You know me well enough to understand the pnill
which such an expression of opinion costs me. It
would be difficult to find any one more devoted
to the house of Austria and to the Emperor
Francis Joseph than I am. But the sacred prin-
ciples here in question stand higher in my re-
gard than all princes and dynasties. On this polo'
every honourable man must bear witness to the
truth, as the bishops have done. That the evil per"
petrated may be yet retrieved, I will not deny ; but'
unfortunately, as far as I am aware, matters stall'
with us at the present moment as described,
doubtless, also, not without deep pain, by the
torich-Politische Bldtter in its last number. The
House of Hapsburg has solemnly yielded up its
claim to the protectorate of the Catholic Church'
and delivered up the interests of the Church to the
good:pleasure of a furious Radicalism, and to a Par'
liament built on this same Radicalism. Fraseia
Joseph has burst asunder the last bond which
yet bound together the various nationalities
of Austria, the common interests of Catholicism
and that at a moment when at Rome signs
are abroad calculated to raise the despondent
energies even of the weak. At a moment when
Louis Napoleon, turning towards the Cahn'
lie Church, with a glance at anti-Roman Prus"
sia, lets fall hearty blows on the back of poor
Italy, in the hope that their smart may be felt by
the Prussian ass which bears it--at such a moment
the Emperor of Austria suns himself in the bolus
of an ephemeral Viennese mob-popularity, for'
getting that the same bearing which in the Jewish
capital of Vienna wins for him the hearts of the
clamorous, estranges a many hundred times greater
number of true and faithful hearts over the whole
Empire. To discover what sort of a rabble it is
that are feting the Emperor, it is not necessary
to descend so low as the streets ; it is sufficient
to cast a glance upon the Chamber of our rePre"
sentatives. There, for instance, we see Pr'
Miihlfeld, who, report says, rejoices in the Ps'
session of four wives (I am, indeed, persculalli
acquainted with him, though I have never entered
his harem). He is the champion of the onslaught
on the Concordat, and has lately delivered a most
vulgar speech filled with unmeaning denunciations
against the bishops. As the honourable member
for Tyrol, Professor Greuter, showed his &OP:
proval of such unbecoming attacks, the demagogue'
only let loose a strain of still more vulgar abuse'
which was followed by a clamour of applause from
his party, in which Professor Greuter was made e'
appear to join one of the heroes of their party'
the renowned Dr. Schindler having had recourse
to the dignified device of hiding himself behind
Professor Greuter, and then calling out, Bra/°
bravo I" The same Dr. Miihlfeld advanced
as a proof of the nullity of the Concordat th 3
as a State contract it could have no validity ;
such a pact was only possible between two teroPe'a
Sovereigns, and that as a law of the State it could
only have effect until abrogated. An enduring stale
compact, as the introductory patent termed it, W 7.
a contradictio in adjecto. Absurd as such rant-in,:
may appear to a jurist, it is not these discourse;
which excite the greatest furore among the Radical
public. These demagogues, in order to stir tO 0°
depths the feelings of the populace, make use of al:
eloquence hovering on the steep heights of mad-
ness. For instance, they insist that the battle of
Konigsgratz requires the abolition of the Concorda.t,
.
Since this watchword has been passed, that tO tw;
Concordat is to be attributed the defeat et
Austria, not a word more is heard of the wall'
of llinterlodungsgewchren, of the faults in t'l
Exercier-l?eglonent, ofthe abuses in the Plethoo
of advancement. A wit, lately, who happened'o
, j t
be thrown into the society of such wim!acres, w'be
were attributing the conquests of Prussia W t'
Concordat, asked with an innocent mien what
paragraphs they had in mind ; heshould like to
re
refer to them, especially as he was at a loss to
concile the victories of Custozza and Lissa with
articles so injurious to our service.
The Morgue rust, which has particularly bus!eci
itself in bringing the Concordat into connection
with our defeat in Ktinigsgrdtz, following out 0
little things as well as in great this mania, attri,
buted the other day to the Concordat the fact til:1:0
a clergyman was seen, as reported, walking in the
a
town park with a dog unbound (which is agail/
; mob
the police regulations). And, doubtless, their,- 0,
of readers have no misgivings but that the Lieat
cordat contains articles which free the clergy fr°o
the police regulations which bind the profane
public as to dogs. Neither do they doubt of '''at
existence of certain articles in the Coneerci.„,
which makes it absolutely impossible for us to van'
quish a Prussian army. that
But do not let all this lead you to imagine
these party leaders, taken on the whole, have ni;
degree of weight or solid influence with the peq
or even with the journalists. A few weeks tplt
the Presse declared it to be a melancholy fact' es
only too true, that the House of Represerantio
was in a state of complete inner dissolution, a, to
that new ideas and new leaders must be founa
Ana
carry on the labours of the Reichsrath. rs•
the Neue Free Presse says in one of its numb° t
—" Our House of Representatives has a ni,ho
°'
uncertain existence ; its leader is chance. the
crisis in which we find ourselves is felt ill
House in all its members. As it is at preseu.,t cnoor o
stituted—we speak it with deep sorrow—this I'lo
is a picture of desolation, a languid body that see
rather to vegetate than to live. No one has
or
compact party in this House to fall back on ;
Assembly
which either Baron von Beust one. This Asse-na
'
which has the pretension of being a popular RePre
of
sentative Assembly, dissolves into a nunlbelioas
small, powerless fractions, and these frnc'
again melt into a number of single heterogeae 41
individuals. Such condemnations resound u°
JP•eh
sides, and such is the political power before Wolot
not only such a pitiable wight, as our val'eph,
Reichs Kanzler, but before which Francis Ps
Emperor of Austria, has bowed his head, do:111131d
ing at the same time from his bishops that icoli
also, as he has done, should bow before it. and
;•
possumus, was the answer. A Catholic spirit ,1
Catholic strength yet lives in Austrian hearts'

A to
The Republicans of Maryland have presertte`-h•e11
Chief Justice Chase a copy of the recent decision by
he freed coloured apprentices, printed on satin and P0."11
somely framed. We wonder what the Chief Jotice
do with it, perhaps hand it down to his posterity as 35°H
nip of a just judge.

wife 01