cency; all day long he has been plagued by Whig Lords, and chastened every morning by Radical manufacturers; as blamelessly as any curate he has written about 'Ecce Homo;' and he has never made a speech, even in the smallest country town, without calling out, with David, How foolish am I, and how ignorant! For all this, what does he see? The scorner who shot out the lip and shook the head at him across the table of the House of Commons last session has now more than heart could wish; his eyes, speaking in an Oriental manner, stand out with fatness, he speaketh loftily, and pride compasseth him about as a chain. It is all very well to say that the candle of the wicked is put out in the long run, that they are as stubble before the wind, and as chaff that the storm carries away. So we were told in other times of tribulation. This was the sort of consolation that used to be offered in the jaunty days of Lord Palmerston. People used then to soothe the earnest Liberal by the same kind of argu'Only wait,' it was said, 'until he has retired, and all will be well with us.' But no sooner has the storm carried away wicked Whig chaff than the heavens are forthwith darkened by new clouds of Tory chaff. the writer of frivolous stories about 'Vivian Grey' and 'Coningsby' should grasp the sceptre before the writer of beautiful and serious things about 'Ecce Homo'-the man who is epigrammatic, flashy, arrogant, before the man who never perpetrated an epigram in his life, is always fervid, and would as soon die as admit that he had a shade more brain than his footman-the Radical corrupted into a Tory before the Tory purified and elevated into a Radical-is not this enough to make an honest man rend his mantle and shave his head and sit down among the ashes inconsolable? Let us play the too underrated part of Bildad the Shuhite for a space, while our chiefs thus have unwelcome leisure to scrape themselves with potsherds and to meditate upon the evil way of the world.”

ment.

That

27. In the action raised by Mr. Sinclair, engineer of the Great Eastern Railway, against Lord Redesdale, Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, for having stated in the Times that the plaintiff had resigned, and was pecuniarily interested in Mr. Brassey's contract for the Dunmow branch, a verdict was given by consent against Lord Redesdale, with 40s. damages and costs.

Mr. Disraeli has an audience of her Majesty, and kissed hands upon his appointment as First Lord of the Treasury. The first Cabinet Council was held on the 2d March.

Sir Thomas Henry dismisses an application made at Bow-street Police Court for a warrant to apprehend Mr. Eyre for the murder of Gordon.

29.-Dismissal of Lord Chelmsford. The Chancellor had an audience of her Majesty to-day to deliver up the Great Seal. A person

signing "Truth" wrote 'to the Herald:"From the leading article in the Times of yes. terday the public would naturally infer that Lord Chelmsford had voluntarily retired from the high position of Lord Chancellor. Such, however, is not the fact. His Lordship had no option but to resign the custody of the Great Seal when informed by Mr. Disraeli that his name could not be included in the list of the new Government. It is stated that Mr. Disraeli's object in removing Lord Chelmsford and in promoting Lord Cairns was to obtain additional debating power on the Ministerial side of the House of Lords; but, on reading this day's Times, I incline to a different conclusion, and I cannot but attribute his Lordship's removal from office to the last act of his ministry, which was to place on the Bench a judge chosen simply for his fitness to be a judge, in spite of unusual pressure upon him to make a less worthy choice." The Ministerial journal appended the following note :-"We publish the foregoing letter in deference to the desire of one who has a right to speak as to the facts of the case. Into Mr. Disraeli's motives we cannot of course enter. But we may state on the best authority that the terms of Mr. Disraeli's letter to Lord Chelmsford were courteous, and even flattering; stating, in effect, that although Mr. Disraeli could not, from various circumstances, offer the noble Lord the position he held in the late Administration, yet that it would afford him the greatest pleasure if the noble Lord would point out any other mode in which he might request her Majesty to signify her appreciation of his distinguished services."

March 2.-Murders at Todmorden Vicarage by Miles Wetherall. The criminal in this case had been paying his addresses to a servant maid living at the vicarage (the Rev. A. Plew); and in consequence of his visits the girl was discharged. On Sunday he went to York on a visit to her, and on returning on Monday appeared to have resolved on taking vengeance upon her late master and mistress, and upon the housemaid, who was supposed to have told of his visits. About half-past ten on Monday night Mr. Plew, who was preparing to retire to his bedroom, heard a noise at the back door. He passed out by the hall door and proceeded to the back of the house, where he saw Wetherall, who snapped a pistol at him, which missed fire. Wetherall next attacked Mr. Plew with a hatchet, but the vicar closing with him, they went struggling backwards into the lobby of the house, through the back door. The noise alarmed the servants, and the housemaid, cook, and nurse came to see what was the matter. Some of these seized Wetherall by the hair and clothes to hold him back. The result was that Mr. Plew escaped by the front hall door, but not until he had received two long scalp wounds at the back and another at the top of the head, several vertical cuts on the forehead, one ear torn from top to bottom, and other wounds. The

housemaid sought shelter in the dining-room, and for a time kept the murderer at bay by placing her back against the door. Wetherall, however, contrived to get his right arm through the door, and discharged a pistol at her, shooting her dead. He next went into the kitchen, armed himself with a poker, and proceeded up-stairs to a bedroom, in which Mrs. Plew was lying, and where she had recently given birth to a child. The nurse said he could not go there, but he told her not to mind, as he had finished those below, and forced his way past her. Stripping down the bedclothes, he fired at Mrs. Plew, but the ball did not take effect. He next attacked her with the poker, inflicting some severe scalp wounds, breaking her nose, and otherwise injuring her. While

in the act of striking another blow at her his arm was arrested by Mr. Stansfeild, the Church organist, who had seen Mr. Plew, and who was accompanied by two others. By these men he was secured and given over to the police. Mr. Plew was able not only to identify Wetherall, but described the mode of attack, and was thereafter subjected to a close examination by the prisoner. The reverend gentleman died from his wounds on the 12th, and the infant on the same day. Wetherall was tried at Manchester on the 13th, sentenced to death, and executed. Mr. Justice Lush, before whom the prisoner was brought, described the outrage as almost without parallel in the annals of crime.

2.-The Paraguayans make a night attack on two Brazilian ironclads. Twelve hundred picked men, armed with swords, revolvers, and hand grenades, in forty-eight canoes, boarded the vessels. They for a time gained possession of the decks; but the Brazilians, shutting themselves up in the revolving turrets of the monitors, opened a terrific fire on them, and eventually drove them back. A struggle of two hours' duration was put an end to by a third ironclad, which did great execution among the Paraguayans by running down their canoes. The Brazilians had thirty-two men and several officers killed and wounded. The Paraguayans lost, it is supposed, about 400 men. The Brazilian Admiral stated that, in the hope of rescuing those in the water, he caused boats to be lowered; but on their approach the Paraguayans invariably dived, thus preferring to be drowned rather than fall into the hands of their foes.

- The Washington House of Representatives adopts the articles of impeachment charging President Johnson with having violated the Tenure of Office Act in removing Stanton without the consent of the Senate, and with violating the Army Bill by trying to induce General Emory to obey orders not sent through General Grant, Commander-in-Chief.

Lord Cairns sworn into the office of Lord Chancellor in presence of the Master of the Rolls and a crowded court.

A grocer's firm in the Borough having written to Mr. Gladstone complaining of the

growth of the co-operative movement among officials in the Civil Service, he replies that in the retail trade there was a total inversion of the natural order of things, which was that men in business should be borrowers from, not lenders to, men out of business. 66 This (the credit) system also aggravates the risk of bad debts, which form an additional charge to a good debtor; and it is connected with a general irregularity and uncertainty which must also be paid for. I do not doubt that we, the consumers, are much in fault. But I cannot help thinking that traders are much in fault also, and that much might be done by a vigorous effort and by combination among traders in favour of ready-money dealings, either absolutely or as encouraged by discounts."

2.-Barnum's Museum, New York, destroyed by fire.

3. The Prussian Government issue a decree sequestrating the private property of the exKing of Hanover.

5.-The new Premier addresses a meeting of his supporters in Downing-street. He began by alluding briefly to the loss the country, the Conservative party, and he personally had suffered in Lord Derby's retirement. But he was glad to be able to give assurance that the party would still have the benefit of the noble Lord's direction and counsel, and he expressed the hope that in a short time the noble Lord would be enabled to return to his old seat in the House of Lords. He admitted the difficulties that lay in their path as a minority having to deal with the great questions now pressing on their attention. But the past two years had given them great triumphs, and he had every confidence that with a firm front they might add to them fresh triumphs in 1868. Mr. Disraeli next alluded to the Scotch Reform Bill, which, he said, must be carried with its main features intact, in order that the whole question of Reform might not be re-opened; to the Irish Reform Bill, which would be introduced at once; and to the Report of the Boundary Commission, which, as the result of the deliberations of a thoroughly impartial tribunal, must be respected. In regard to the treatment of Irish questions, he left the Secretary of Ireland to make the Ministerial statement on the occasion of the discussion on Mr. Maguire's motion. The right hon. gentleman concluded, amidst great cheering, by expressing his confidence in the future, and reiterating his expressions of gratitude for the warm support he had experienced.

The Disraeli Ministry take their seats. In the House of Lords the Earl of Malmesbury explained that he had not on a former occasion said Mr. Disraeli was authorized to form a Ministry "if possible," but "as soon as possible."-Earl Russell took an early opportunity of attacking the Government for inconsistency. "We know now," he said, "that for three years the Government has been carried on upon the principle that, having declared against any

reduction whatever in the franchise, the Ministers of the Crown, while they were persuading people to follow them in that course, meant all the time to make a larger reduction in the franchise than was proposed by the Liberal party. The consequence was a course of deception, which has been called by another name, but which I think must prevent any reliance upon a Government which openly avows that it does not mean what it says, but professes one thing and means another. (Cheers.)" The Duke of Marlborough (with some warmth) asked the noble Lord what he meant. Lord Russell :-"If the noble Duke wishes to know what I mean, I must refer him to a speech made by the present Prime Minister at Edinburgh, in which the course taken by the Government was not called a course of deception-it was not called, as Mr. Disraeli formerly called the Government of Sir Robert Peel, an hypocrisy’— it was called a 'process of education.' (Laughter.) But the use of that word does not prevent the fact being quite clear, which the present First Lord of the Treasury did not endeavour to excuse or apologize for, of which he even boasted, that during seven years, during which the fears of the country had been excited respecting a reduction of the franchise, against which Mr. Disraeli protested in the House of Commons, afterwards congratulating the electors of Buckinghamshire that no such reduction of the franchise had taken place during all that time he had been educating his party with a view to bring about a much greater reduction of the franchise, and what he would at one time have called a greater 'degradation of the franchise,' than any which his opponents had proposed. (Cheers.)"

5.-The House of Commons was crowded to hear the new Premier's declaration of policy. After a tribute to the great merits of the late Premier, Mr. Disraeli said :— "In succeeding to the position of Lord Derby I have succeeded to the principles on which he established his Administration some years ago, and which he has more or less advocated and upheld for the Jast twenty years, maintaining an unbroken and unswerving course. For twenty years past I have been in confidential co-operation with Lord Derby, and I must, therefore, be cognisant of the principles and opinions he holds on all the great questions of the day. With respect to the foreign policy of the present Administration, we shall follow that course which has been pursued under the guidance of my noble friend near me, I believe I may say, with the approbation of Parliament, and, I think I may add, with the confidence of Europe. (Cheers,) That policy is a policy of peace-not of peace at any price for the mere interests of England, but a policy of peace, from the conviction that such a policy is for the general interests of the world. We do not believe that policy is likely to be secured by selfish isolation, but, on the contrary, we believe it may be secured by sympathy with other countries, not merely in their prosperous fortunes, but even in their

66

anxieties and troubles. If such a policy be continued, I have no doubt, when the occasion may arise—and periodical occasions will arise when the influence of England is necessary to maintain the peace of the world—that influence will not be found inefficient, because it is founded on respect and regard.' Next came his domestic policy:-"I say at once that the present Administration will pursue a liberal policy. (Cries of Hear' from different parts of the House.) I mean a truly liberal policy-a policy that will not shrink from any changes which are required by the wants of the age we live in, but will never forget that it is our happy lot to dwell in an ancient and historic country, rich in traditionary influences, that are the best security for order and liberty, and the most valuable element of our national character and our national strength. (Cheers.)" Mr. Bouverie moved the adjournment of the House in order to make some comments on the Ministerial programme. Why are Conservatives now in the possession of power? Simply because the Liberal party, though an undoubted majority in this House, and representing a vast preponderance of opinion in the country, does not deserve to be called a party. That may be an unpalatable truth, but it is truth notwithstanding. We have leaders that won't lead, and followers that won't follow. Instead of an organized party, we are little better than a rabble. (Laughter.) We have none of the advantages of party except strength of numbers, which the right hon. gentleman opposite wants. It is a great public calamity, most detrimental and injurious to the public interests, that the Government of the country should be carried on by those who are in a minority in the House of Commons. It must lead to a wavering, inconsistent, uncertain policy; and the experience of the last two years amply confirms this opinion... Looking to party questions and to party divisions, it seems as if the old party battle-fields were being swept away, as if the old standards of party were no longer to be raised, and as though we must contemplate some amalgamation or union of those who most sympathise in their general views of policy, apart from those great questions upon which our leading statesmen now separate from each other. . . The right hon. gentleman opposite must be sufficiently acquainted with the spirit of the times to know that he cannot make the Irish Church the battle-field on which to stake the existence of the Ministry. And upon the Irish land question are we not all practically agreed, except perhaps the hon. member for Westminster, who, by the way of wiping out the results and the effects of three great land confiscations in that country, proposes a fourth? Practically, are we not substantially agreed on both sides of this House that some interest must be given to the tenant in that country for the unexhausted improvements which he has effected upon the land? Are there any other questions which are likely to divide parties in this House for some time to come?

If there are not, I think the public interest has suffered by the right hon. gentleman having neglected to attempt some mode in which he might have brought to bear, for the advantage of the public, the talent to be found among gentlemen on this side of the House as well as among those behind him, for the purpose of carrying, by a strong and united Government, those measures which he must be convinced are for the benefit of the country." The motion for the adjournment of the House was afterwards withdrawn, and the order of the day proceeded with.

5.-The second reading of the Capital Punishments within Prisons Bill (now extended to Scotland) carried by a majority of 181 to 25.

6.-The Premier sends the following letter (dated Downing-street) to the newspapers with reference to Earl Russell's remarks in the House of Lords :-"Sir, Lord Russell observed last night in the House of Lords that I 'boasted at Edinburgh, that, while during seven years I opposed a reduction of the borough franchise, I had been all that time educating my party, with the view of bringing about a much greater reduction of the franchise than that which my opponents had proposed.' As a general rule, I never notice misrepresentation of what I may have said; but as this charge against me was made in an august assembly, and by a first Minister of the Crown, I will not refrain from observing that the charge has no foundation. Nothing of the kind was said by me at Edinburgh. I said there that the Tory party, after the failure of their bill of 1859, had been educated for seven years on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and during that interval had arrived at five conclusions, which with their authority I had at various times announced, viz.-I. That the measure should be complete. 2. That the representation of no place should be entirely abrogated. 3. That there must be a real Boundary Commission. 4. That the county representation should be considerably increased. 5. That the borough franchise should be established on the principle of rating. And that these five points were accomplished in the Act of 1867. This is what I said at Edinburgh, and it is true."

-

In a debate on the Alabama claims, Lord Stanley said this country had conceded everything asked for when the dispute began. At that time the question of premature recognition of belligerent rights had not assumed its present importance. Incidentally it was mentioned, but that was all. "But by a curious process that grievance, whatever its value may be, has been gaining importance in the minds of American public men, just in proportion as we are willing to remove other causes of complaint. (Cheers.) The sole point unsettled between us is this-'You are willing,' the United States say, 'to refer to arbitration the question of the Alabama and other kindred vessels; are you willing to include, as a point in

the reference, the question whether you were right or wrong in recognising the Confederates when you did?' To that the answer we have given in substance is that, as at present advised, I cannot see what bearing the two things have on each other. For all political purposes, as bearing on the events of 1862, you might as well include the question, whether we were right or wrong in the war of 1812." He supposed that no one would contend that the Confederates had never at any period in the struggle become entitled to belligerent rights. "But if they were belligerents at some time, and not so when recognised as such, when did they become so? Take a date that would test the question. If ever they were belligerents, I suppose they were so after the celebrated battle at Bull Run. They had then a large force in the field, for a time at least they had achieved a military superiority, and, above all, Washington was threatened. Suppose we had recognised them after that battle, would any human being have found fault with us? Could any one have charged us with being precipitate in our recognition? And had we done that, how would it have affected the Alabama question? The Alabama escaped in April 1862; Bull Run was fought in July 1861. If I had chosen to take that line of argument in my despatch, it would have been competent for me to contend in this way-'I grant we were wrong in recognising the Confederacy when we did. We ought to have done it in August, and not in May. We were six months too soon. But, having admitted that, will you, the American Government, tell me how your case as regards the Alabama would be in any way affected if we had done what you contended we ought, and made the recognition six months, instead of twelve months, before the Alabama sailed.'" It was on this ground of irrelevancy that he (Lord Stanley) chiefly rested. "Suppose we had not recognised the South, and suppose that fortune had decided in their favour, would they be entitled to call us to account for not having recognised them soon enough, and thereby having injured their prospects? So stated, the question seems absurd. But if we

are responsible one way, we are responsible the other. If damages are to be given for premature recognition, as injuring one side, why not for tardy recognition, as injuring the other? In what position is a neutral power placed whenever a war breaks out? This is not a question for the moment only. It is a question of general international law. It is a question which will create a precedent, and we are bound not merely to do what is convenient for the moment, but to do what is right in the light of the duties of nations in general towards each other. (Cheers.) After all, in recognising the Confederates, we simply declared that to be a civil war, which Mr. Seward, on the part of the American Government, had declared to be such. These documents were not private letters, but state papers,

which have been since published and laid before the public. They bear date nine, twelve, and sixteen days before the Queen's Proclamation. I will read only one, and that shall be brief. On the 4th of May, nine days before the issue of the Queen's Proclamation, Mr. Seward writes in these terms-'The insurgents have instituted revolution, with open, flagrant, and deadly war, to compel the United States to acquiesce in the dismemberment of the Union. The United States have accepted this civil war as an inevitable necessity.' (Correspondence relating to foreign affairs accompanying the President's Message to Congress in December 1861, p. 165.) I should be sorry to say anything that would look like want of courtesy to the eminent and accomplished diplomatist by whom the correspondence has been conducted throughout, and than whom no man in the United States has probably had greater experience. But if the question were one which we could discuss apart from politics, and if we were not thousands of miles apart, but could meet face to face, I should venture to ask him whether he could with gravity call upon me solemnly to refer to the arbitration of some neutral body, or some third party, this question, Whether we, the British Government, had a right, on the 13th of May, to declare that to be civil war, which, in various documents, especially in one dated the 4th of May, he, Mr. Seward himself, had christened by that name? (Cheers.) Let it be also noted that the highest Court in America had also declared the state of things then existing to be civil war. Besides, if there were no war, there was, of course, no blockade, and we might claim damages for every blockade-runner captured. Claims such as these would mount up to an almost inconceivable total, and I really cannot think that the statesmen of the United States would be willing to let in these enormous claims for the sake of insisting upon a point which practically, and in its immediate application, is not important, though I admit that indirectly it may have considerable importance."

6. Came on for hearing in the Rolls Court the case of Lord Brougham v. Dr. Cauvin, being a claim for literary work performed by desire and for the interest of the plaintiff. From the preliminary proceedings which took place in this case it appeared that Dr. Cauvin was selected by Lord Brougham to prepare the memoir of his life, and in particular to look over and arrange the letters received from King William, Lord Melbourne, and other eminent men during the past half-century. There was no bargain as to remuneration, nor was there any principle laid down by which remuneration was to be afterwards fixed. When the first volume approached completion, Dr. Cauvin made an application for payment, on account, of a sum so large as induced William Brougham, on behalf of his brother, to object till a statement was furnished of the entire probable payment expected. Dr. Cauvin thereupon

refused to restore the letters and other documents entrusted to him; and the aid of the Court of Chancery was now sought to enforce recovery of them. A special claim was made to-day to have Lord Murray's letters delivered up, but the Chief Clerk thought they had better remain in Dr. Cauvin's possession till an order was made regarding the whole.

7.-Fall of the premises in the Strand for merly occupied by Holloway and Son. The building was about to be removed in connexion with the improvements around the new Law Courts.

9.-The Scotch Reform Bill read a second time without a division. In the early part of the debate an amendment was moved by Mr. Hadfield opposing any increase of members of the House, but it was not pressed to a division.

10.-Debate on Mr. Maguire's motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee to take the condition of Ireland into immediate consideration. The chief interest in the discussion was excited by Lord Mayo making a declaration of the intended Irish policy of the Government. A Commission was to be appointed to inquire into the whole state of the relations between landlord and tenant; and in the meantime a bill would be introduced providing for an easy compensation for money laid out in improvements, and another for rendering more efficient the working of Irish railways. The question of the general education of the people was already under the consideration of a Commission; and with regard to the Universities, the Government proposed to leave Trinity and the Queen's Colleges as they were, and to grant a charter to a Roman Catholic University. The senate would consist of a chancellor and a vice-chancellor, four prelates nominated by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and six elected lay. men. With regard to endowment, it would of course be necessary to ask Parliament to provide for the expenses of the building, and the officers and professors, and probably Parliament would not feel indisposed to endow certain University scholarships. He could not propose the endowment of any colleges until something was known of what the nature of the colleges were likely to be. With regard to the Irish Church, it was not proposed to take any immediate action during the present session of Parliament. Seeing that an inquiry was now going on, which would be completed in the course of a few months, it was not desirable to legislate until the result of that inquiry was made known. He did not believe that the Irish Church could be overthrown without a fierce and protracted struggle; and if it were to fall, it would inflict incalculable injury on the country. The debate was protracted over four nights, and ended in the withdrawal of Mr. Maguire's resolution. On the third night, Mr. Bright spoke against the Government proposals. "I recollect," he said, that Addison, a good while ago now, writing about the curious things that happened in his time, said there was a man in his county