The Sun.
London, England, 1868-07-28 00:00:00

THE SUN LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 28, 1868,

THE "DUBLIN REVIEW."

(From the Westminster Gazette.)

One merit characteristic of the Dublin Re-
view is its alertness. It is keenly alive to the
questions of the day and to discussions on
matters in which Catholics are especially in-
terested. It never waits until Catholic opinion
is formed, but by putting forward argumenta-
tively and persuasively its own views, contri-
butes towards the formation of a sound judg-
ment on questions under discussion. In-
deed, the Dublin Review often anticipates the
criticisms of the weekly Catholic Press. In
its present number there are three articles
of prominent interest, to which readers instinc-
tively turn on opening its pages. These
articles are—" The Irish Disestablishment ;"
" National Tendencies and the Duties of Catho-
lics ;" and " Mr. Renouf on Pope Honorius."
We strongly urge such readers as have taken
up Mr. Renouf's pamphlet, or have read the
review of it in these pages, to study the article
in the Dublin Review on this pamphlet, which
has excited so much indignation, for they will
find, as it seems to us, a thorough and con-
clusive refutation of the various assertions
which Mr. Renouf has so lavishly indulged
in. On the general character of Mr. Renouf's
pamphlet, the Dublin Review makes the fol-
lowing observations :
" Certain of his readers will probably be
so taken in by his arrogant tone, as to fancy
him an authority ; and it is a duty of charity
to do what we can towards relieving such
timid spirits from their wholly unnecessary
alarm. Nothing, indeed, can be feebler and
more desultory than his remarks. He makes
no attempt whatever, either to state and de-
fend any theory of his own, or to meet the
arguments which Ultramontanes have drawn
out for theirs ; he does but put together, with-
out order or arrangement, a few miscellaneous
facts, which present a superficial appearance of
difficulty. As there is no connection of argu-
ment in his pages, we will encounter his little
pellets as nearly as we can in the order in
which he flings them." We cannot attempt
to go through the arguments which the writer
of the article brings to bear against Mr. Re-
nouf's objections ; we have only space to
recapitulate his conclusions. " 1. There is
not," says the writer, " the very slightest—
the most superficially colourable—pretence for
saying that any Pope or Council ever con-
demned Honorius for having taught heresy
ex cathedra. You might just as plausibly say
that Benedict XIV. or Pius VI., or any other
Pontiff you like to name, has been condemned
for teaching heresy ex cathedra. 2. It is most
absolutely certain that he did not teach heresy
or error ex cathedra ; that neither expressly
nor by implication did he issue any command
whatever of interior assent to heretical or
mistaken doctrine. Mr. Renouf, intending
to deny this statement, in fact corroborates
and affirms it. 3. It is far from improbable,
but by no means certain, that the Eastern
bishops anathematized him for having fallen
into heresy ; just as they anathematized Ser-
i, gins, Syrus, and the rest, for that offence. 4.
i is quite certain that no Pope ever anathema-
tized him for such an offence. St. Agatho, as
a matter of private opinion, thought that
Honorius had rendered the Church good ser-
vice on the Monothelite question. St. Leo 11.
—possibly in consequence of having heard
much from the legates as to the evil results
which Honorius's letters had wrought in the
East—declared ex cathedra that that Pontiff
had grievously injured the Church's Faith.
But neither St. Agatho nor St. Leo suspected
him for a moment of having himself fallen
into the Monothelite heresy. For ourselves,
we are thoroughly prepared to defend Hono-
rius's orthodoxy on intrinsic grounds alone.
His letters contain no one syllable savouring
of Monothelism; and his first letter, the only
tone remaining entire, is conclusive for the
perfect Catholicity of his doctrine. We will
not, however, here enter on this discussion;
for it could not be satisfactorily conducted,
unless we had far more leisure and more space
at our disposal. Such a discussion, moreover,
would oblige us to consider with some care
various matters of dogma—concerning the
Hypostatic Union, the Sacred Humanity, the
mutual relations of Christ's two natures—
which imperatively claim a separate treat-
ment. No solid result could be obtained, by
thrusting incidental remarks on them into the
midst of an article, which is occupied with
matters entirely heterogeneous. Nor is there
any practical reason whatever for our here
attempting such an inquiry. Mr. Renouf him-
self hardly enters at all into the theology
of the controversy, but contents himself for
the most part with peremptory assertions.
' Modern theologians betray an utter ignorance
of the real nature of the controversy' (p.
14). ' Nothing can be more grossly untrue
than the assertion that Honorius was misled
by Sergms ' (ib). ' His own letters are the
best proof that he understood the question at
issue ' (p. 15), and held the Monothelite tenet.
The author states peremptorily (p. 18) that
those propositions of Honorius, which that
Pontiff's advocates allege as inconsistent with
Monothelism, are not really inconsistent with
it ; but he does not state what those proposi-
tions are, or how reconcilable with the hereti-
cal tenet. We will defer, therefore, the whole
dogmatic question to a future number. A dis-
tinct doctrinal inquiry, however, may be raised
concerning Honorius, on which a few words
will be in place. However firmly he clung
to the orthodox dogma at issue—did he not
hold that the phrase " two operations " is an
tunsuitable phrase for its expression ? That
he did not teach this
,opinion cx cathedra we
have shown most abundantly ; but did he not
had it ? We are not very clear, but we think
not. He undoubtedly held that, under exist-
ing circumstances, the use of this phrase was
most inexpedient. But we really see no proof
that he even asked himself the question,
whether in itself the expression were or were
not inappropriate. •He left the matter for
' grammarians ' to decide. He looked into
the details of the controversy most super fi-
cially, and he was profoundly mistaken on a
most vital question of ecclesiastical prudence ;
but we know no evidence of his having held
any positive doctrinal error whatever. We
will conclude our discussion on Honorius with I
three remarks :-1. It is very suitable that a
Pontiff after his death should be censured
for gross neglect of his primary duties. As
we argued last October (p. 299), " many holy
Popes have been canonized, as for other
reasons, so also because of the unwearied assi-
duity with which they have guarded purity
of faith. It is no derogation then from the
Papal office that a Pope shall be honoured
after his death by the Church, for his espe-
cial diligence in defending the faith. Neither,
therefore, is it a derogation from his office,
that he shall be anathematized after his death
for his signal neglect in the performance of
that duty." 2. Moreover, Honorius's con-
demnation places in emphatic light the diffe-
rence in kind between the Pope and any other
bishop as regards their respective offices in
guarding the Deposit. Here is a bishop
anathematized for no other offence than that
of having failed to repress heresy with suffi-
cient activity, in a place removed thousands
of miles from his own diocese. To no other
bishop in Christendom, except the Roman,
would any historian dream of alleging that
this could by possibility occur. 3. The nar-
rative which we have been considering is by
far the most plausible historical objection
against Ultramontanism which has yet been
raised ; and so evidently thinks Mr. Renouf,
by the prominence he has given to it. Yet
when you look closely at the circumstances,
how completely every difficulty disappears !"
The Dublin Review has done great sen ice
by the promptitude and fulness with which
it has examined Mr. Renouf's superficial and
mischievous pamphlet ; but the audacity of
such an attack, had not its argumentative and
historical worthlessness been at once exposed,
might have led the unwary, or the unlearned,
or the hostile, to suppose that there was at

least some foundation for such sweeping asser-
tions.
The next article to which we wish to call
attention, and we can scarcely do more than
call attention to it, is " The Irish Church
Disestablishment," a question which has
already been much discussed by Catholics.
As might have been foretold by any one fami-
liar with the sound and Catholic instincts of
our great Quarterly, there is, on its part,
not a moment's hesitation as to the duty of
every Catholic to lay hand at once, heartily
and unreservedly, to the work of abolishing
the Irish Church. " The Irish Establishment,"
says the Dublin Review, "while it lasts, practi-
cally proclaims that the Catholic faith is con-
sictered a more desperate and irreconcileable
enemy to the English nation than any other
creed, Christian or Pagan, over the face of
the earth. No Catholic can account himself
admitted within the pale of the Constitution
until this ignominy has been wiped out."
The writer having borne his testimony to
the "almost complete unanimity among Catho-
lics as to their appropriate practical course,"
proceeds to notice the speculative difficulties
which have occurred to some Catholics. In
the course of this examination the writer in
the Dublin Review effectually demolishes two
opposite theories which have been publicly
maintained by some Catholics—one, namely
that the separation of Church and State,
" except at Rome," is beneficial, if not neces-
sary to " vital religion;" and the other theory,
that the disestablishment of the Irish Church
is a violation of those Catholic principles of
Church and State enforced by Pope and Syl-
labus. On the first theory the writer observes
that " the Syllabus infallibly condemns the
proposition (LV.) that Church should be
separated from State, and State from Church:'
and the Mirari Vos,'—also an infallible Rule
of Faith—teaches affirmatively that the 'mutual
concord' of Church and State has always
been propitious and salutary for the interests
of both.' We are, of course, the very last to
call in question the peremptory obligation,
incumbent on all Catholics, of acceptins, the
Church's doctrine on this head. If—which
God forbid !—there be really any Catholics
in England, who consider that the union of
Church and State in a Catholic country is
essentially otherwise than beneficial ;—that
promotion of the people's spiritual welfare is
external to the civil ruler's legitimate province;
—that the Church's divinely given authority
extends only over the individual, in nowise
over the civil government as such ;—we hav e
not a word to say in defence of such Catho-
lics. They rebel against the Church's infal-
lible teaching, and commit mortal sin. But
we are quite unable to see, how the most hearty
renunciation of these grave errors can throw
any difficulty on the question of Irish dis-
establishment."
On the second theory, which has been put
forward by some other Catholics, the Dublin
Review speaks thus :—Occasionally, indeed,
you hear language almost implying that the
Irish Establishment is the Church, instead of
being the Church's determined enemy. To say
that the Church-State principle is ipso facto
violated by disestablishment, is simply un-
meaning. As well might you say that that
principl was violated when the English Go-
vernment forbade the religious practice of
Hiudoo widows being burnt alive. An adult
Irish Protestant, if in invincible ignorance,
may be travelling towards heaven ; but in
strictness he is no more a member of the Visible
Church than is an idolatrous Hindoo. Other
Catholics urge with great truth a different
consideration. The Church-State doctrine,
they say, involves a condemnation of the tenet
that the province of civil government is con-
fined to ends purely secular. We have already
strongly maintained that no Catholic is per-
mitted to hold such a tenet. But so far
from being exclusively, it is not even princi-
pally on secular grounds, that a good Catholic
would overthrow the Irish Establishment. His
hatred of it is different in kind from his hatred
of any tyranny which is purely oppressive and
anti-social. He detests it pre-eminently, be-
cause it is so injurious to the spiritual welfare
of Irishmen, Catholic or Protestant. A third
difficulty, founded on the Church-State doc-
trine, requires more prolonged consideration,
though we think it quite as baseless as the
two preceding. The Catholic bishops, it is
urged, decline receiving for the support of
priests any portion of the available property ;
and by consequence disestablishment involves
a substitution of the voluntary ' principle for
with
the principle of Church and State."
After examining the , different senses of
this phrase, " voluntary ' principle, the writer
o s continues, " The ,
h voluntary-
ism,'c
contrasts
theimplies
Church-State
thatthe former principle neces-
sarily involves a State payment of priests.
principle
But there is no shadow of ground for such a
supposition. The Church's endowments did
not come from the State, but from the pious
gift of zealous individual Catholics ; and in
those countries where at present the State
confers on priests some pittance, this is but
an infinitesimal restitution for some peeceding
robbery of the Church's revenues. Doubtless
it is quite imaginable that the State might
enforce a voluntaryism, which would contra-
dict the Church-State principle. It might re-
fuse to secure to the Church possessions left
for her service. And, indeed, the present law
of superstitious uses (so far as it goes) is a
direct violation of the Church-State principle ;
it despoils the Church of property which is
really hers. But as to the Irish Establish-
ment, it was itself founded on one of the most
monstrous transgressions of the Church-State
principle which was ever perpetrated ; we
mean, of course, the plunder of Church pro-
perty, while the whole nation remained zeal-
ously Catholic. Nor can any one in his senses
allege that the law of superstitious uses ' will
derive any further strength from the success of
Mr. Gladstone's present proposal. No doubt
Cardinal Cullen and the other Irish bishops,
for most intelligible reasons, refuse to place
the Irish Church in that relation towards a
bitterly anti-Catholic and tyrannical Govern-
ment, which would result from State support
of the clergy. But as to voluntaryism in
any objectionable sense, it is simply monstrous
to say that they do otherwise than abhor it.
Do they ask, then, that the State shall take
from the Church what pious donors have given
her during the last century ? do they ask that
the State shall require Catholics to pay rent
for the use of those chapels and schoolhouses
which the preceding generation of Catholics
have built ? This would be voluntaryism,'
in the only sense in which that principle is
opposed to the principle of union between
Church and State. And we will venture to
say that no men living would regard such
voluntaryism' with greater abhorrence than
the Irish bishops. Why, they have actually
accepted a State subvention for Maynooth,
and desire one for the Catholic University.
Nay, put the impossible case, that Parliament
should frankly admit the Church to be the
one legitimate owner of all Church property in
Ireland, conferred in Catholic times. Put the
impossible case, that Parliament should wish
to restore her that property, as to its one
legitimate and indefeasible owner. We do not
see the slightest appearance that the Irish
bishops would hesitate to accept such restitu-
tion as their legitimate due. That the Church
should re-enter into possession of property
conferred on her by pious Catholics of the past,
as the confessed and absollste owner of that
property—this is one thing. That she should
become the stipendiary of a violently anti-
Catholic nation to which Irishmen are politi-
cally subjected—this is a different, and, indeed,
most opposite thing."
The judgment of the Dublin Review will,
we trust, tend to correct the passing and
scarcely, perhaps, conscious errors into which
some Catholic writers have been betrayed either
from unfamiliarity with the great principles at
stake, or from a sudden and hasty judgment,
partially blinded, maybe, by too great a politi-
cal partizanship.
The concluding remarks and emphatic warn-

ing of this thoughtful and observant writer

descrve3 attention. "We cannot then," 'he
says, " see any force whatever in the specu-

lativc difliculties which have been raised, on
Catholic principles, against Irish disestablish-
meat. But we do think there is one most
serious evil in the present situation ; viz., its
tendency to strengthen the connection, already
(we think) far too close,. between Catholic
public men and Liberal politicians. It is now
more than a year since we earnestly protested
against the Catholics of this empire identifying,
themselves with either of the two great politi-
cal parties ; and every month which has passed
since that time, has but increased our convic-
tion in the same sense. But of the two parties,
the Liberal seems to us more anti-Catholic
even than the Conservative ; and we are pro-
portionately the more alarmed at this particular
feature in our present prospect."
Ile then proceeds to point out wherein this
danger consists, and shows that Liberalism,
both on the Continent and at home, is opposed
to the principles of dogmatic religion, or, in
other words, of a definite revealed faith, which
it regards as an evil against which the State
ought to contend, that it insists upon the
divorce of politics from religion, and that the
principle of secular education, as opposed to
denominational, is rapidly becoming the prin-
ciple bond of union for English Liberals. The
question of education is of the most paramount
importance, but the Liberals are the avowed
enemies of denominational education. On these
grounds the writer says, "It is to us then, a
matter of keen grief, that this attack on the
Irish Establishment—an attack in itself so
just and so necessary—has incidentally added
much strength •to the Liberal ranks.' The
political conclusion which the writer arrives at
is this—" When the struggle now looming in
the distance becomes present and energetic,
it is most important that Catholics shall have
fixed themselves in their true political position.
That true political position consists in union
with each other, and non-union with externs.
They can have no deep and permanent sym-
pathy with British Conservatism ; and still
less, of course, with Liberalism, whether
British or other."

THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CON-
VENTION.

Tammany Hall, of brick and freestone, is a
building of five storeys, with a flat roof, from which
rises a dome. It is substantial, the stairways being
of granite, and the whole constructed to last many
generations. The great hall resembles a theatre,
of which the platform is a stage. It has its pit,
calculated to accommodate 2,000 persons, and the
raised circle ascends behind, with places for 2,000
more. The ordinary seats are benches, but there
are a few hundred cushioned chairs to the right and
left for ladies. On each side the platform are the
telegraph operators with their forty boxes dissemi-
❑ating the intelligence of all said and done. On
the platform are the officers of the Convention, the
executive committee, and the most distinguished
members of the party. Although the official re-
porters have places on the platform, those of the
daily press sit below at oblong tables, the other
correspondents and reporters being to the right and
left. The delegates draw lots for their positions,
which are indicated by flags with the name of the
State in gilt letters. Beyond their seats are the
public, who throng the house from the red railing
up to the passages, where the uniforms of the police
may be observed. Flowers and flags innumerable
ornament the platform in the hall, draping the
pillars, festooning the windows, and hanging from
the walls. Inscribed over the platform are the arms
of the States. After Saturday's business the real
work commences on Monday. A cordon of police-
men from an early hour keep the gathering and
pushing crowd at bay ; the public are admitted by
tickets, the colour each day changed. The dele-
gates and reporters wear blue badges, before which
the doors yield. The meeting having assembled by
10 o'clock, the reports of the committee are read ;
lloratio Seymour, being named, is conducted to
the chair, an 1 when the acclamation ceases,
he addresses the multitude on the sins of the
Radicals, on the virtues of the Democrats, and
on their mission to unite cordially for the rege-.
neration of the country. Then commences the
hearing of the resolution of the delegates. Chief
Justice 'Chase is thanked for maintaining the in-
tegrity of the Supreme Court, and loud cheers greet
his name. The President also receives a resolution
of thanks, but the reading of his Amnesty Procla-
mation is voted down. Among the addresses is
one written by Susan B. Anthony on behalf of the
Woman Suffrage Association. It is presented by
the chairman, and read by the clerk in a clear loud
voice, while Miss Anthony and Mrs. E. Cady Stan-
ton sit there as delegates, and listen to its recep-
tion. Regarding this reports differ. Miss Anthony
describes it as meeting with a most enthusiastic and
respectful hearing; but she acknowledges in a leader,
and explains, the shouts of laughter, which she
asserts were not derisive of woman surfrage, but
called forth by the happy hits in the letter showing
the inconsistencies of the Republican party. The
Standard's correspondent, who gives the fullest and
most graphic account of such scenes of any of the
London dailies, says :—" Their address is received
with screams of laughter ; their faces, normally not
of lily whiteness, flame like peonies, and in a little
time they retire with some precipitation to the re-
fuge of the Revolution office, where doubtless they
are at this moment preparing lightnings to scorch
the cajoling, unbelieving Democracy." The corre-
spondent is, however, wrong ; perhaps soothed by
the extraordinary politeness he represents them as
receiving from veteran politicians who dangle about
them, while they criticise with sharpness the pro-
ceedings and the actors, they treated with contempt
the rude vulgar in the galleries. The " lightning"
of the Revolution is against the Republicans, but
there is not a word to say against the proceedings
" within the sacred walls of Tammany Hall."
Susan's address declares—" We are not idiots,
lunatics, paupers, criminals, rebels,' nor do we bet
on elections.' We lack, according to your consti-
tutions, but onequalification—that of sex—which is
insurmountable, and therefore equivalent to a de-
privation of the suffrage ; in other words, the
tyranny of taxation without representation.' "
Minorities can be moved by principles, majo-
rities only by votes ; hence our appeal to De-
mocracy. The party in power, unmoved by
their efforts, have proposed to their States
to insert the word " male " in the Federal
Constitution, and thus erect a new barrier against
women, who, roused by this fresh insult, have ap-
pealed to the Democrats, who are asked to save the
Constitution from this desecration. " Over this
base proposition the nation has stood silent and in-
different. While the dominant party have with one
hand lifted up two million black men and crowned
them with the honour and dignity of citizenship,
with the other they have dethroned fifteen million
white women—their own mothers and sisters, their
own wives and daughters—and cast them under the
heel of the lowest orders of manhood." The De-
mocrats placed the poorest ditch digger on a politi-
cal level with the proudest millionaire, and were
rewarded by power from that time, with few inter-
ruptions, until the war. A similar boon to women
will insure the political power of the party for de-
cades to come. While demanding it on the eternal
principles of justice, Miss Anthony happily alludes
to this consideration, likely to weigh with: infinitely
greater force, in " the sacred walls of Tammany."
She then gives some ideas on the late war, and con-
cludes with these words :—"I desire, therefore, an
opportunity to urge on this Convention the wis-
dom of basing its platform ort univers d suf-
frage as well as universal amnesty, from Maine
to California, and thus take the first step to-
ward a peaceful and permanent reconstruction."
s After two sessions, the committee not reporting,
the Convention adjourned till Tuesday. On that
day, at ten o'clock, the hall is again filled as before,
and the following platform is sanctioned with a
shout that shakes the solid building :

"First —lmmediate restoration of all the States to their
rights in the Union under the Constitution, and of civil
government to the American people. Second— Amnesty
for all past political offences, and the regulation of the
elective franchise in the States by their citizens. Third
—lt calls for payment of the public debt of the United

States as rapidly as practicable ; all moneys drawn from
the people by taxation, except so much as is requisite for
the necessities of the Government, economically adminis-
tered, being honestly applied to such payment, and where
the obligations of the Government do not expressly state
upon their face, or the law under which they were issued
does not provide that they shall be paid in coin, they ought,
in right and in justice, to be paid in the lawful money of
the United States. Fourth, —Equal taxation of every specie
of property according to its real value, including Govern
talent bonds and other public securities. Fifth—One
currency for the Government and the people, the
labourer and the officeholder, the pensioner and the sol-
dier, the producer ~and the bondholder. Sixth—Eoo-
nomy in the administration of the Government; the re-
duction of the standing army and navy ; the abolition of
the Freedmen's Bureau and all p)litical instrumentalities
designed to secure negro supremacy; simplification of the
system, and discontinuance of inquisitorial modes of assess-
ing and collecting internal revenue, so that the burden of
taxation may be equalised and lessened; the credit of the
Government and the currency math) good ; the repeal of
all enactments for enrolling the State militia into national
forces in time of peace ; and a tariff for revenues on foreign
imports, and such equal taxation under the Internal It .•>-
venue laws as will afford incidental protection to donaostic
manufactures, and as will, without impairing the revenue,
impose the least burden upon and best promote and en-
courage the great industrial interests of the country.
Seventh—Reform of abuses in the administration, the ex-
pulsion of corrupt men from office, the abrogation of use-
less offices, the restoration of rightful authority to, and
the independence of, the executive and judicial depart-
ments of the Government, and subordination of the mili-
tary to the civil power, to the end that the usurpations of
Congress and the despotism of the sword may cease.
Eighth—Equal rights and protection for naturalized and
native-born citizens at home and abroad, the assertion of
American nationality which shall command the respect of
foreign powers, and furnish an example of encouragement
to people struggling for national integrity, constitutional
liberty and individual rights, and the maintenance of the
rights of naturalized citizens against the absolute doctrine
of immutable allegiance, and the claims of foreign powers
to punish them for alleged crime committed beyond their
jurisdiction."

Then comes the next great business—the platform
has been erected, the candidates must be selected ;
who are to take their place upon it ? In the Chi-
cago Convention there was a little clap-trap when
Grant was named, a curtain being drawn aside re-
vealing his likeness, and an unoccupied pedestal with
the words " Match Him " over it. This was
answered by the Democrats placing a clown in the
unoccupied position, but they did not intend to as-
sert that they deliberately selected a clown to run
against Grant. The States are called in their alpha-
betical order as at Chicago, and the chairman of
each delegation responds and names the choice of
his State, sometimes prefacing it by a brief speech,
and each well-known name is greeted with accla-
mation. The balloting then begins, and the Chair-
man of Alabama's Delegation, rising on the Secre-
tary's call, says—" The State of Alabama casts her
8 votes on behalf of Andrew Johnson of Tennessee;"
and the announcement is received with enthu-
siasm. After all the States have voted, Pendleton
stands first ; the 817 votes being cast as follows :
Pendleton, 105 ; Andrew Johnson, 65 ; Hancock,
331 ; Church, 33 ; Asa Packer, 26 ; English, 16 ;
Doolittle, 13 ; Joel Parker, 13 ; Reverdy Johnson,
81 ; Hendricks, 21 ; and F. P. Bair, only 11. The
balloting continues, as it had been decided on Sa-
turday between the repudiators and their opponents
that a mere majority shall not decide, but two-
thirds of all the delegates are necessary for the no-
mination of a candidate, an old rule, in the in-
fringement of which lay Mr. Pendleton's only
chance of success. Had a mere majority been
sufficient, Mr. Pendleton would have been assured
of the nomination, but the gold-men were too
strong to give him any prospect of securing two-
thirds: The delegates amount to 634, each of
whom has half a vote ; every State being entitled
to send twice her number of. Senators and Repre-
sentatives in Congress, though the votes only equal
their Congressional members. Five minutes are
allowed for consultation after each ballot, the same
time as given to the proposers of candidates to speak
in praise of their favourites.
On Wednesday twelve additional ballots were
taken—Mr. Pendleton started with 1371, and on the
eighth ballot reached 1561, but on the last ballot
of that day sank to 561. Hancock then took up
the running, rising from 421 on the first ballot of
that day, to 1441 on the last, when 87 was thrown for
Hendricks, and 10 only for Andrew Johnson. The
result showed that Pendleton had no chance, and
on the evening the delegates met in secret caucus.
Sanford E. Church was to be withdrawn, Chief
Justice Chase to be substituted by the New York
delegation, and Mr. Seymour, as delegate at large
was to propose him. A Californian delegate on
the last ballot but one of the day cast his half vote
for the Chief Justice, when the audience rose and
cheered wildly. On the morning of Thursday, the
19th ballot was taken, Hancock receiving 135
votes, and Hendricks 1071. On the 20th ballot,
M'Clellan's name came up, receiving half a vote.
Four Massachusetts delegates threw their votes
amid some hisses on the 21st ballot for Chief Jus-
tice Chase. Then commenced the last ballot, New
York desiring to be passed over to the end. On the
previous night the 21 Ohio delegates having de-
cided to Withdraw Mr. Pendleton upon his own
written authority, and present the name of Horatio
Seymour, threw the whole vote of that State for
the new nominee. General M'Cook, who was
spokesman, said he yielded to the desire of every
public man in that State, including Mr. Pendleton,
in nominating Mr. Seymour, whom he begged to
yield to the general wish. Instantly throughou t
the hall the utmost excitement prevailed, the 4,000
rose to their feet as one, and for a quarter of an
hour the wildest expressions of joy were indulged
in. It was not mere cheering, but that continued
rolling noise such as is made by a multitude when
all strive their utmost to add to the uproar.
Handkerchiefs waved and hats flew into the
air, giving to the whole hall tl e appear-
ance of movement. Outside the roar was
caught up, and before it ceased it was known in all
the great cities of the Union that Horatio Sey-
mour would be the Democratic nominee. During
this time Mr. Seymour, who had risen, stood calmly
gazing at the spectacle, his face showing no sign
of what was passing in his mind, but when he spoke
it was in a tone of evident excitement. With many
kind allusions to Mr. Pendleton, he ended by the
emphatic declaration, while thanking the Conven-
tion, that " your candidate I cannot be." Mr. Val-
landigham insisted on his acceptance of the nomi-
nation, saying it was incumbent upon him to lay
every personal consideration aside. The voting,
temporarily interrupted, proceeded, and every
delegation successively named Seymour. Those
who bad previously voted recalled their ballots, and
also threw for Seymour, winding up with New York,
who gave her 33 votes. When Horatio Seymour
was announced to be the unanimous choice of the
Convention for the Presidential candidate, all eyes
were turned to the chair, but Mr. Seymour had
gone, and a delegate occupied his place. A recess
followed, when the Convention re-assembled to
choose from the soldiers nominated a candidate for
the Vice-Presidency. The other candidates were
withdrawn or declined to run, and General Francis
Preston Blair, of Missouri, was declared to be the
unanimous choice of the Convention. He was nomi-
nated by General Forrest, whose name is insepar-
ably associated with Fort Pillow, and was seconded
by General Wade Hampton, who thought it due to
the soldiers of the North that they should have the
Vice-Presidency ; and as he took his seat General
M'Clernand crossed the hall and shook him warmly
by the hand, amid vociferous applause.
After adopting resolutions thanking the Chief
Justice for his dignified and impartial manner of
presiding in the Impeachment Court, and arpoint-
ing a committee to wait upon the candidates, the
National Democratic Convention adjourned sine

I A DVERTISEMENT4 —Holloway's Pills—Biliousnoes,
Headache, and Deranged Stomach.—Recollect, reader,
that most diseases come on with apparently a trifling be-
ginning, which could at that stage be readily stopped, but
being neglected, other and more serious symptoms set in.
The stomach becomes disordered, more or less feverish
.signs appear, followed by loss of appetite, strength, and
energy. As a counteracter of these terrible symptoms, it
is only necessary to take moderate doses of Holloway's
pills, which will purify the blood, give a healthy action to
the vital functions, and restore a robust state of feeling to
the greatest valetudinarian. During hot weather,when the
spiritsflag, from exhaustion, occasional doses of Holloway's
medicine will recruit the failing powers and renew vigour.