Imagens das páginas

evidence condemned Governor Wall to death had for twenty years kept the rope with Which Armstrong was illegally scourged, and evinced unmistakeable animus in his testimony, but the spirit hostile to the prisoner was the spirit of retribution, without which the ends of criminal justice would never be attained. An officer who believes his superior to be a tyrant who has brought about the death of a good and unofi'ending soldier, and that his oppression has destroyed the harmony and is impairing the discipline of his regiment, cannot give his testimony to that effect witlrstoical indifference if there be real honesty and manliness in his character. He may be mistaken in his view without being wrong in the moral sense accompanying his view, and which, when an ill name is to be given to it, is called animus, as if animus must always be evil. And equally remarkable and unfortunate it is that these Courts-Martial, which ignore the rules and technicalities of law, are a vast deal too ready to resort to a technicality when it may serve to convey a vague prejudice against any object of their displeasure.

We do not mean to contend that witnesses are to have

immunity from any animadversion that may seem called for;

at the time from their manner of giving their evidence, but such animadversion should be very sparingly used, and should not be followed up with anything in the shape of a judgment upon conduct affecting an officer’s prospects. It is true that our 'udges in their charges occasionally reflect upon Witnesses, ut this only with a view to the just appreciation of their evidence by the jury. Courts-Martial too, in their secret deliberations, must be quite free to discuss the bearing and manner of witnesses and the weight to be attached to their evidence, with a view to the finding. But what is to be protested against as of bad practice and example and cruel effect, is the judgment carrying punishment with it passed upon witnesses for evidence they have been compelled to give, and have not given untruthfully, but allegedly with bad motive. Motives are easily imputed, and diflicult of proof, and it certainly seems to us a great injustice to condemn men to ruin upon an arbitrary assumption of questionable motives, or bad feelings.


In his intervals of leisure as hangman-general of Lithuania, Count Mouraviefl‘ occupies himself with penal plunder. Tired of playing the vulture, he botakcs himself to the functions of the vampire. The blood is to be sucked out of the timid and the languid when the bones of the courageous are no longer to be broken. The “luke“warm” among the middle and upper classes, says the Russian commander, must be fleeced and mulcted into, loyalty. Love of race, of country, and of creed isi characterized in his despatches to St Petersburg as an

to the secret influence of the French Government, no attempt at revolt has been made either in Galicia or Pcsen. How long will the motive continue to exist after the first cannonade is heard on the banks of the Eider?


Such a book as that of Sir J. Emerson Tennent on the vast subject of shots, shells, charges of powder, wads lubricated and dry, Brown Ross, the bores of rifles small and large, the Enfield, the Whitworth; guns of all calibres and their carriages; not omitting a word in season on some of their miscarriages; as well as observations upon iron-plated ships; was needed at the present moment, if only to dispel some of the pestilent notions that were beginning to steal over us. Some Were beginning to doubt whether there had not arisen a mighty poWer, the representative of which had founded a new dynasty of hereditary gunmakers within these realms, and had by his astonishing talent created the necessity for a close monopoly, which, for the benefit of the present race and the advantage of posterity, was to be maintained as the exclusive privilege \of one great man. We do not find that Sir Emerson entertains these opinions; on the contrary, he is manifestly of a different way of thinking, and considers that the more the manufactures of the country are thrown open to tho ingenuity of all-comers, the more perfect is the product of their competition likely to become.

The book, as we have seen, begins with a history of Brown Bess, and the author pleasantly enough points out to us how long her charms had reigned triumphant over the hearts of the British army. Indeed, the defenders of Tilbury Fort in the days of our fair and regal Bess, protected her and her fort with the identical Brown Bess, which afterwards asserted her power at Ramillies, Malplacquet, Blenheim, on the heights of Abraham, at Bladensburgh and the taking of Washington, and smiled on Wellington from Assaye to Vt'atcrloo. Even that eminent war Christian, the Bishop of Labuan, with Terry's breechlondcr, hardly comes up to the excellent practice which Daniel Defoe insists upon it that Robinson Crusoe made with Brown Bess at the cannibals who intruded on his privacy. Be this as it may, there are now produced for us some wonderful tables of practice of this weapon, the rule of which seems to be that it never by any chance hits what it may be aimed at; and a doubt is hazarded whether a body of cross-bowmen would not be more destructive than a body of Brown Bess-men. The French and other European nations had worse muskets, luckily, with weak locks and powder of the vilest description; consequently we Were better armed than our opponents. It wa by the French, however, that we Were first enlightened upon great guns and small arms; and as in this country it is, and


epidemic so prevalent that nothing but universal canteryilaljvays has been, considered vulgar to have an original will get rid of it; and this must be applied broadly and ,‘mllitary idea, so from the French we borrovved the Paixhans without distinction wherever the faintest symptom of‘gun and the Miuié rifled musket. The Americans then disafl'ection has shown itself. Special imposts in addition : taught us that a pistol which could fire six successive shots to those already existing are imposed on all owners ofgvas a more formidableweapon than a pistol which could property whatsoever, the onus being thrown on those‘yfire only one shot at a time. When the minds of our War who hope for exemption of proof that they have actively ; Authorities were just recovering from a painful tension of taken part with the spoilers. Everywhere, it is said, theuntelleot, the consequence of entertaining more than one civil functionaries of the Government who are of Polish idea at a time, that busy and clever Prince, the Emperor origin have betrayed their sympathy with the cause of of the French, invented a rifled field-piece, with which he insurrection. All have not done so openly; but in one,iucontinently dusted the white jackets of the stolid AusWay or other nearly all are said to have done so. The trians, from a distance then scarcely believed possible. class, therefore, is not only to be denounced and fined for , Solferino changed the armament of the whole world, and its moral complicity in patriotism, but it is to bojthnt change is due to the talent of Napoleon the Third. extinguished. Russians, and none but Russians, are iniAftor Europe had been completely armed with rifled great future to be employed in the misgovernment of Poland; guns, and the Italians had used not only field-pieces, but and as the service, it is apprehended, will be one of noisiege guns of that description; after the Spaniards had little discomfort, if not of danger, the salaries of the new,read a lesson to the Moors with rifled ordnance, and ofllcials are to be fifty per cent. higher than those of the France, Spain, and Portugal had armed their respective old ones, to be paid for by an extra tax on the outlawed .navies with those weapons, England began to think there and outraged Poles, No other system, Europe is assured, ,‘might be something in it; and Sir Emerson Tennent holds out any hope of tranquillising the country. llBkGS up his succinct and clear history of modern guns, The Government of Prussia, as if it had not enough on just as our War Authorities had run the country up a bill its hands already, seems benton kindling the flame of'insur- inf nearly three millions, and conferred the honour of rection in Posen, where hitherto it has smouldered. Some , knighthood on Sir William Armstrong for failing on one iniquitous acts of administrative oppression and pillagepoint or another in all he attempted. The book lays the are reported as having been perpetrated where no resistancelwhole account of the strange conduct of our Executive to Prussian authority is even pretended to have takenibefore the public without drawing deductions from the facts. place. We begin to think we erred in treating King Wil- ; But those deductions are so self- evident that its silence is liam and his Ministers as lunatics. Madmen are define ‘pcrfectly eloquent. as those who reason rationally from irrational premisses ;l

Sir Emerson Tennent is not at all blind to the eminent but Count Bismark and his colleagues do not answer the scientific qualities of Sir William Armstrong; he makes former part of the description. Their ways and means of

them known to the general public so fully and generously misrule are as incomprehensibly bad as its aims and

objects. Foolish and factions as the conduct of the Berlin Chamber of Representatives has been, it has yet had the generosity and wisdom to liberate from arrest certain Polish members of its own body who had been dealt with apparently on more suspicion. We do not affect to believe that the majority who thus voted against Ministers have any desire to see Poland free. But at a moment when they are urging Germany to undertake a crusade for the partition of Denmark, they have common _ sense enough to defer provoking an unsettlement of Prussia’s part of the past partition of Poland. The Prussian Executive, hoping vainly to propitiate Russia perhaps at a juncture so critical, lends itself with a meanness that is Worse than madness tothe imitation of Russia’s most detestable policy. Shall we wonder if the long-sufl'ering Poles in Posen are convinced at last of the futility of their forbearance during the last twelve months to join their brethren in arms? Universality has been truly characterized as the soul of an insurrectionary war. Owing, it is whispered,

that the Knight of Elswick’s general reputation will be raised rather than lowered by this publication of plain facts. But at the same time it by no means appears that his power of making black appear white on paper, probably engendered by an early acquaintance with the law, should put him beyond competition with others, many of whom have been more immediately connected with the working of hard metal. Among those referred to in the story of the guns are Whitworth and Blakely. As regards Whitworth, we are almost inclined to think that the author has yielded himself too completely to the influence of a natural admiration for that engineer's undoubted talent. There is no doubt that the Whitworth rifle, speaking of small arms, as far as trajectory power and precision are required, deserves all eulogy bestowed upon it; but something more is required of a weapon before it can be adjudged the best, for general use of an army, and we must say that the small‘ bore of the Whitworth rifle, its liability to clog, its recalcitrant powers, and on a continued fire its liability to fly to pieces, in our opinion are such'


objections as lead us to prefer the Enfleld as the more useful though less accurate Weapon of the two. We must differ in this point from Sir Emerson Tennent, and agree with the repert of the Ordnance Select Committee of 1862 on the system of rifling for small arms. The Committee speak thus in their exceedingly able report on the Whitworth rifle: “Although the reduced bore has shown a “ great superiority in precision over the large calibre (the “ Enfield), yet the wear that takes place in the percussion“ ing is so considerable that the rifle in a very short time “becomes unserviceable. In the course of these experi“ments, and before 500 rounds had been fired from any “one of the small-bore rifles, eleven hammers had been " broken by the force of the gas escaping through the “ nipples." The Committee objected likewise to the Whitworth cartridge, and also remarked that every Whittvorth rifle being dearer than the Enfield by fifteen shillings, and the wear and tear and breakage being so much greater, the expense formed matter of grave consideration. The Committee, consequently, could not advise general adoption of the Whitworth, although its partial adoption for certain men who were expert marksmen might be expedient. The report of this Committee was printed by the House of Commons, on the motion of Mr Kinnaircl. For ourselves we entertain a very strong opinion that very fine and close shooting, at long distances, in the army generally is of doubtful value. When we see the preposterous pains men take in shooting for prizes, refusing after the manner of great singers to speak above a whisper, wrapping themselves up when cold, denudiug themselves of garments when warm, putting their elbows and hands into cold water or eau de Cologne to steady their nerves, and then reflect that the gentleman under this treatment might, in a stricken field, be called upon to deliver a shot after running half a mile, stumbling over the dead bodies of his comrades, and with his nerves unstrung by anger,—we would not for the world insinuate a less noble emotion,—-why it seems to us that a man so circumstanced would not pay very accurate attention to his sights, but blaze away as best he might. As regards great guns, between the only two permitted competitors Armstrong and Whitworth, the narrator of their story evidently leans to the latter and gives Mr Whitworth the credit of being the first to penetrate the Warrior target with a flat-headed shot; but we do not observe that Sir Emerson refers to the fact that the flat-headed shot is no more the invention of Whitworth than the coil system is the invention of Armstrong. Sir Emerson points out that Captain Blakely asked permission at his own expense to bring a piece of ordnance into the field against Armstrong and Whitworth, but met with a refusal, which appears as hard to explain as it is objectionable. Captain Blakely has always denied that any engineer could build up sides of any sea-going ship strongly enoughto keep out shot or shell from guns which he can construct, and has constructed. Captain Blakely is not inclined to put faith in the shape of shot or shell, but believes thata gun built of such strength as will carry a large charge of powder with safety, is all that is requisite, and that opinion appears to be gaining ground.

There are certain axioms on which Sir Emerson Tennent relies, and which are quoted by him with advantage. While we attended after he was dead to the advice of the Duke of Wellington, which we had neglected while he was yet living, and proceeded to put our country into some sort of defensive position, the consequence of which was the springing up of our Volunteer force; we neglected the great Field-Marshal’s wise advice never to adopt any supposed improvement in our national armament which was not completely perfected. Three millions wasted on Sir William Armstrong’s crude designs, not one of which is yet perfected, is the fine that has been paid by us for slighting this advice.

The observations made by Sir J. Emerson Tennent upon armour-clad ships appear to us to be generally judicious. But we cannot at present make further observation on that part of the subject. We would, however, generally remark that no obstruction which it may be possible to heap upon a sea-worthy, sea-going ship can withstand the ordnance, either prepared or preparing against it. Monster guns may be employed on forts, but from the evidence before us we fully believe that rifled guns, not more weighty than our useless 68-pounders, may be found to go to sea in our ships, and perforate the armourplated ships of any hostile nation because they can perforate our own. At present we have no such guns in our navy. We cannot understand any idle assertion having weight with the public, that we are on equal terms with the Americans, because we have guns with as great trajectory power. Witness the Armstrong 110-pounder gun which may carry a shot five miles, but cannot penetrate an ironplated target at 200 yards. It is not trajectory power but penetrative force that we must find and bring into our service.


, Three weeks is rather a short time for an inquiry by Commission of Lunacy into a man s competency to manage his affairs, but -in two hours Mr Scott, the Derbyshire Magistrate, and his three colleagues, had satisfied themselves ot' the insanity of Towuley, and certified accordingly. The tribunal for the occasion was composed, at the instance of the prisoner’sattorney, Mr Leech, of Mr


Cox and Mr Scott, Justices of the Peace, Dr Good Chaplain of the Jail assisting and approving. A certificate had before been signed to the same effect, but a doubt having been raised as to its validity, as two of the magistrates were borough magistrates, and the Act seemed to require county magistrates, that certificate was not used, but another obtained, as we have stated. It is to be remarked that, after the signing of the first certificate, the Governor, according to the statement of Mr Cox, “ex“ pressed his great gratification and approval of what had “ been done, adding that ‘now Townley could not be “ hanged.’ " Yet if we remember rightly, that same oficions oflicial denied that he had uttered or formed any opinion as to the sanity or insanity of Townley. The murderer’s keeper rejoiced nevertheless at his escape from the gallows and the jail. They manage matters so at Derby.

[ocr errors]

Mr Scott says that the opinions of the Governor and the Chaplain strengthened his impression that Townley was mad, and so, after an examination lasting only two hours, he forthwith signed the certificate, but without knowing the uses to be made of it. We attach no importance to the last point, as the effect of the certificate under a dangerous and absurd statute had nothing to do with the question of fact whether the man was mad or not.

It is to be observed that both the proceedings took place after the Inquiry of the Lunacy Commissioners, and evinced the resolution to take the question out of the hands most competent to deal with it. The prisoner’s attorney knew better than to leave his client’s fate to the judgment of the authorities most likely to come to an unbiassed and correct conclusion. And so justice was defeated, and a most mischievous example of impunity presented.

The question that must now occur to every mind is how it is that so long, minute, and searching an inquir is necessary to ascertain sanity or insanity with a view t0.the management of property, while, where justice is concerned, any four gentlemen—two magisterial, two medical—can settle all doubt in a couple of hours. This latter selfappointed commission does not require the examination of every soul who has had any knowledge of the party; it needs no throng of witnesses, no counsel to argue the pro and con, cross-examine, and browbeat, no array of medical authorities. It goes into a prison chamber, looks at the prisoner, asks him questions upon which he knows his life depends, takes his answers, marvels that they are not as coherent as the rope waiting to hang him, and in two short hours by the clock comes to the most positive conclusion. Now all that we ask is, why this short and easy process, if good for criminal justice, is not equally good when property is concerned.

If Townley's competency to manage his affairs had been in question, does any one believe that he would have been found unqualified P He wants the reason to qualify him to be hung, but has all that is necessary to qualify him to conduct afi'airs. There is only one explanation of the different treatment of the same question when it relates to property and when it relates to justice, and that is, that property is considered of incomparably more importance than justice, and the protection of life is regarded as of less concern than the protection of money, or money's worth.

The history of the Townley case is now complete, with one exception, which is rather a considerable one, namely, whether he has been found mad in Bedlam, and is now actually and properly under treatment for insanity. Two hours sufficed to settle the question at Derby, has a month’s trial confirmed or reversed that judgment in the great criminal lunatic asylum ?


The Manchester Chamber of Commerce held its anniversary meeting on Tuesday last. We have a full report of its proceedings, and what is said on such an occasion by its leaders, the Ashworths, the Masons, the Penders, and the Cheethams, the very princes of British industry, is well worth hearing, for it is sure to be pregnant with sound knowledge and instruction.

It appears, then, that after ransacking the whole tem~ perate and tropical world from Italy to Japan, and giving enormous bonuties for cotton, our present supply is equal to no more than three and a half days out of six of the quantity necessary to Work our looms in employ. Supposing that no increase in our supply had taken place for three years, which would be contrary to the experience of fifty years, our supply was short last year of what it was in 1861 or before the American Civil War, in the proportion of seven to twelve, or a deficit running close upon one-half. The full supply of 1861 cost us about 30,000,0001., and the present year’s scant one it is estimated will cost us not less than 90,000,000l., so that for the scant supply we are paying about three times what we did for the full one.

India is the country which has furnished us with the largest supply to make up for the loss of the American cotton, but India, as we always predicted in this journal, will never supply the place of America, and its failure to do so has been most exemplary. In 1861, the price of Surat or the best Indian cotton in the Liverpool market was from 3%d. to 4d. a pound; it ranges at present at from 20d. to 23d. a pound, so that we'are really paying a bounty of some 500 per cent. on the normal rice, and what has been the result? In 1861 India supplied us with 968,000 bales of cotton, and last year with 1,220,000, a paltry increase of no more than 26 per cent., and this, too, is not he produce of increased growth, but the result of with


drawing the large supply formerly sent to China, and sweeping the India market of all manner of rubbish, raising the cost enormously to the Indian wearer and consumer. As to the quality of the Indian cotton, it has not only undergone no improvement, but suffered a great deterioration. “ India cotton," said Mr Chectham at the Manchester meeting, “ was never more contemptible in the opinion of “the manufacturer and workman than at the present “ moment.”

Now for this despised commodity our dire necessities compelled us to pay last year the gigantic sum of 43,000,0001., a sum sufficient to pay the interest of the national debt, leaving a handsome balance of 15,000,0001. It is mortifying to compare this failure of mighty, large-promising British India with the success of little Egypt, ruled by a mere Turk. In 1861, Egypt supplied us with no more than 97,800 bales of cotton, and under the stimulant of great prices, furnished last year 248,700 bales, the quality of the Egyptian, tested by price, being three-fold that of the Indian cotton. Here we have not a paltry increase of 26 per cent., but a handsome one of 154 per cent., or close upon six times as much. This really amounts to nothing short of an indecent exposure of Indian misrule by its own authors. We have repeatedly insisted that the primordial farming of Hindcos would never furnish a substitute for the lost supply of America, and that, in a word, Hindoos were about as unequal to the production of fine cotton as of steam engines and locomotives, and so it has turned out. The late Lord Canning, as our readers know, had passed a law for the sale of wild lands in India, which would. for the first time, have put India on a level with our colonies, with the advantages of European skill and capital and cheap India labour, a measure which, had it been honestly carried out, would by this time have put us in the way of a large permanent supply of good Indian cotton. It was smothered in the smoke raised by the Council of old Indians, for which, and for various other short-comings, Sir Charles Wood, its responsible head, is soundly, and we think very justly, rated by the unsparing magnates of Manchester. These hard-headed men by no means measure the value of the right honourable gentleman’s services at his own estimate of them, especially objecting to his flashy exposition of them before the electors of Halifax, man no doubt very knowing in wool, but very ignorant of cotton and India.


It is difficult to understand the wants of Galway. Galway wanted a subsidy for a direct communication with North America. Galway got the subsidy, but made the packet line not direct but a Liverpool line teaching at Galway. Galway boasted what a fine sal‘e port it was, wanting no pilotage, as vessels could find their way in and out in all weathers. But this would not last, and Galway is now crying out for pilots. Galway has only two pilots, and those shore pilots. Galway now calls out for four pilots.

The Anglia got stranded for 'want of a pilot, for whose guidance she had waited and signalled in vain for many hours, and her Captain explained that Galway pilotage Was only to be had inside the dangers while it was only wanted outside the dangers. But in the fine port of Galway there is this difficulty, that if it blows at all from the westward a pilot cannot, without great peril, if at all, be got on board an inward-bound vessel nor got out of an outward-bound one. One of the mail packets was delayed many hours as she could not get delivered of her pilot, and had to put back to smooth water, where a boat could be got out without swamping. It was on that occasion announced that for the future pilots would be dispensed with, as there was more trouble with them than need of them; but then happened the mishap of the Anglia, and more pilots has become the cry.

At a recent public meeting at Galway respecting the case of the Anglia, Mr Stephen held forth as follows about pilotage :

It was in every inefficient state, and unlike what should exist in a great port like Galway. T here was no pilot from the workload to Arron. The two they had were shore pilots, and were not authorised to go beyond the roads ; and he therefore thought they ought to appoint a committee to inquire into the present state of the pilotsge, and with a view to having two more appointed. On their books, so far back as July last, they had a notice for the appointment of another pilot, but from that hour none had been appointed. If the safety of the ships was not to he considered, the lives and property of passengers ought to be protected in the bay of Galway ; and with that view he begged to move that a committee of inquiry be appointed to report to the board on the present state of the pilotage, with a view to the appointing of two more. If the man who got a vessel down the bay was allowed to bring her into dock, they would establish a competition without injuring any PPl‘rOD, and the Work would be better done. They had forty pilols at Limerick, and there were only two in Calway. How could one man be expected to watch vessels in a bay twenty.rct-cn miles lony and nine miles wide? By getting two additional pilots to go down the bay the chances were that no vessel would be allowad to pass.

The fallacy throughout is the assumption that Galway is a great port. Galway is not a port of any importance. To class it as a third-rate port is, perhaps, to class it rather too high. It ranks far below Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Belfast, Limerick, and Londonderry, and a little above Skibbereen, Sligo, Tralee, and such small places. If, then, Galway had more pilots what would Galway do with them, how would Galway find employment for them, and how would they subsist? Pilots live upon traffic, but small is the traffic of Galway, and we doubt whether Galway averages two small ships in and out in a Week, exclusive of the subsidized packets. How, then, could Galway support the four pilots of which Galway is ambitious? And Galway pilots,

of the Arran Isles, ought to be well paid for their rough and dangerous service. Of all the waters of the British Isles the wide mouth of the deep bay of Galway is most exposed to the worst weather. It is there that south-west g'ales prevail in their greatest fury, and driving in the wildest sea in the thickest weather, for so it always is when it over-blows. For days together a pilot might be in his boat hove to, nominally on the look-out for ships, while he could not see the length of his own little vessel. This is not done now, because the two pilots of Galwav are good only for the roadstead, keeping prudently, as the Captain of the Anglia explained, inside the dangers. And We really cannot see what is to tempt them to do more. The fact is that Galway is altogether a mistake. Galway is misplaced for a port, and it Would cost half a million to make a safe roadstead, leaving the approaches with their irremediable dangers. How Galway ever came to think of the sea is indeed inex licable, like many other things in Ireland, and are this t e slender trafllc should have corrected the great mistake. But as Galway has the knack of getting its whims indulged, it will no doubt get moles and pilots, and all the furniture of a port except trafilc. What will be its last cry ought, indeed, to be its first,— ships. But ships have no call there, and Well it is for them that they have not, as storm and fog make their favourite home of these waters.


We fear much that, in despite of philanthropic efforts, the condition of the labouring class in every country will always depend more upon its industrial state and development than upon any law, whether of politics or property. Adam Smith said, long ago, that the condition and wages of the labourer depended upon the progressive or stationary nature of that upon which he was employed. Even this is not so true as it was, the efforts of progress in all being directed more to the use of machinery than the employ of increased labour. Of course America and Australia are out of the question. There the demand for labour, from the quantity of unoccupied soil, renders the peasant’s condition eminently progressive. But there are countries, at no great distance from us either, which offer fair tests of the value of what Mr Bright alleges, viz., that the condition of the labourer must be very much improved by a wider distribution of political power.

France is one of those countries. Universal suffrage, we know, prevails in it. And the manifest effect of this universal suffrage in France is to make the representatives of the rustic districts, where peasants unquestionably predominate, constitute an immense majority over the towns. In fact, the French agricultural peasant has the suffrage completely in his own power. He has thus the political state which Mr Bright recommends, and he has also the law of inheritance, which pleases this gentleman. Landed property is divided equally amongst sons and daughters. It is, however, so plain, even to the rustic mind, that a farm, with dwellings and farm houses and a certain area, cannot be divided without considerable loss, that the heirs generally agree not to divide it. One takes the farm, and mortgages it to pay their shares to his co-hcirs, together with the slice that the French law of succession takes. The consequence, as is well known, is the gradual impoverishment of the French peasant proprietors to a point as low as the state of the British farm servant. Wheaten bread is unknown to large numbers of the population. Its place is supplied by rye or by chestnuts. Beef and mutton are unheard of, pork is rare and bad. And as the French peasant abhors salt and dried meats, bacon he knows not.

It may be said, however, and perhaps with some justice, that France offers an unfair field of experiment. For although it may nominally enjoy universal suffrage, there is a Constitution which destroys and neutralizes all the liberty it falsely promises and implies. In France, though there may be no aristocracy of older brothers, or rotten boroughs, there is still the Government, its officers and agents, which rule the country and oppress it, much as an aristocracy might, and thus destroy all the naturally good effects of political and social equality.

Well, then, let us turn to another country, in which we are very much interested at the present moment, and of which our readers will be glad, independent of economical dispute, to learn something. That country is Denmark. It was a country once very much like England; its soil was possessed by a feudal aristocracy and gentry, who ground down the peasant class certainly to as low a level as could be found in England or elsewhere. With the progress of time came, however, revolution. The lower classes rose in mutiny, and awarded to the Crown despotic power for the purpose of cutting off the entails and destroying the privileges of the gentry. The Crown did its bidding. And the Danish aristocracy, obliged to pay its debts and abide by the non-thrift of possesscrs, sunk gradually away. Their lands were first mortgaged, then let, last of all sold to capitalists; and men of a commercial class, Germans very often, became the proprietors. These are the farmers, called Verpachtcrs, of Denmark and Holstein. The revolution has since been carried further. The King is no longer despotic. There is a legislative assembly elected, all but about a dozen members, by a. very democratic franchise. The assembly is our friend, the ltigsraad. Mr Bright would highly approve of its composition. The agricultural labourer, however, fares no better under it than he has fared under preceding governments. The climate of Denmark, with its long


expected to go knocking about, looking out for ships abreast


winter, its need of peat supply and cattle stock, with the pasture requisite, does not admit of small peasant properties or proprietors. They would starve; and therefore democratic institutions can do nothing for the labouring Danish peasant. He is what he was and ever will be. And yet he is extremely well educated, and can read and write to perfection. But even this will not give him a farm, or ajoint, or a spit to turn it.

Whilst detailing such facts, we are very far from saying that the condition of the English agricultural labourer is not to be discussed, inquired into, and bettered. But it is not a question to be advanced by being made either a party or a class one, or by being treated with either rudeness or dogmatism. The Times was inconsiderate in accusing the British Gracchi of agrarianism. They know England too well to breach such a doctrine; and the Gracchi ought to have known public opinion better than to hope to enlist it on the side of a flunkeyish dislike to see journalists associating with their natural equals in polite and wellinformed society. A great part of political information in this country is oral, and confined to the upper classes. If a journalist may not come near them, he must doom himself and his readers to a certain amount of unnecessary ignorance, an effect that Mr Bright and Mr Cobden, liberal and intelligent as they are, would certainly be the last men to desire.

Beyond that answer upon its own low ground to a frivolous suggestion, it need hardly be said that, whatever their calling, if it bring them into contact with the world, it is impossible that liberal and educated men should not establish mutual relations of goodwill, aid, or companionship among persons of almost every degree.


The Lords ustices have decided against the claim for costs in the Divorce Court, which we noticed in our last number. The presiding Judge regarded the proceedings as wholly groundless, and observed, that the attorney should have exercised more caution before he took up the jealous woman’s case, and might easily have satisfied himself that his client was labouring under delusions. But an attorney's judgment is very much influenced by the prospect of costs; land farther, as the true Amphitryou is he _With whom Sosia dines, so the lawyer thinks the client rational who has the discernment to employ him. Where then, again weask, is the security against groundless proceedings, carrying with them scandal and defamation. See in the followmg petition all that is necessary to commence a suit, how_ easy the first_step, after which there is a halt, during_ which evil-speaking, lying, and slandering have fallswmg. And though the charge may not be credible, it gives opportunity and occasion for all the worst that can be said or conceived against the object. .'

In the matter of Timothy Joseph O'Kane, of No. 26 Invernels road, Bayswater, in the county of Middlesox, gentleman, Dated 19th day ofOctober, A.D., 1863.

Showetb :—1. That your petitioner was on the 2nd day of October, 1851, lawfully married to Margaret Matilda Augusta Morris, of No. 2 John street, Sutton street, Commercial road East, in the said county of biiddlesox, spinster, at St George’s-in-thc-East, in the said county of Middlcscx.

2. That, after his said marriage, your petitioner lived and cohabited with his said wife at No. _2 John street, Sutton street, Commcr' cinl road East aforesaid; at Gravescnd, in the county of Kent; at Dingle, Killarney, and Tralec, all in the county of Kerry, in Ireland; and at No. 26 Grove place, Brompton, in the county of Middlesex; cndzthhat thersiwas issue of the-said marriage—vim, one son and four dau tors. , v .

3. That on or about the' 16th do of June, 1863, and at divers other days and'titnes at Cambridge ouse, No. 94 Piccadilly, in the said county of Middlesex, and at divers other places, the said Margaret Matilda Augusta O'Ksne'com'iniued adultery with one Henry John gemple, Viscount Palmerston, K.G., First Lord of Her Majesty's

reasury. .7. .

Your etitioner, therefore, humbly prays that this honourable Court wi i be pleased to decree arid declare the said marriage of your petitioner and the said Margaret Matilda Augusta O'Kanc to be dissolvedg'and that your petitioner may have such further and other relief in the premissesgaslo this honourable Court may seem meet. And your petitioner claims 20,0001, damages against the said Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston, K.G., First Lord of Her Majesty’s Treasury. And your petitioner will ever pray. ' ‘

J "‘ Tiiro'rur Jessi-u O'KANB.

[ocr errors][graphic][graphic]

or i‘) ‘ . vLI "

Tria Cars or Goon Horn—The accounts from the Caps are of the 21st ult. The harvest prospects were good. Provisions were abundant and cheap, and money plentiful. The vineyards promised well, and the orchards were loaded with fruit. The supply of wool was considerably greater than informer years in both the Western and eastern districts. The inquiry into the death, at Angra Peqiiina, of James Gray, mate of the harquc Saxon, took place at Cape Town on the 2nd of December. The murder of Gray, without provocation, by Donoghan, an officer of the Federal steamer Vanderbilt, and the insulting conduct of the Vandrbilt‘s men to the crew of the Sim-ms, in addition to seizing her, had been proved. Messrs Rowiey and Miller had returned from Zambesi. Dr Livingstone had received the news of his recall, and had admitted his expediiion to be a failure. A rumour had reached the colony of his having been murdered near Lake Nyasla



Sir,—When the able Special Correspondent of the Times, writing from Richmond, irginia, conjugates the verb cause, and echoes the burden of my song on the subject of our deficiency in artillery, it is certainly “ confirmation strong." In a former letter the Special Correspondent of the Times assured us that Parrott's guns in the North and Brooke's guns in the South possessed a penetrative power against which no armour-plates were of avail, and a Frenchman, ad— dressing the Emperer of the French and relating his experiences of the siege of Charleston, fully confirmed every word so written, and gave practical instances of the enetrative power of a gun of 9-inchcs calibre, constructed y Brooke, which destroyed an iron-plated monitor, named the Keo/cub, with four shots, at the range of nine hundred yards.

While perusing these opinions and facts, I could not help laughing as I called to mind the speech of that “ true-hearted tar " (as old Dibdin hath it), Rear-Admiral and Secretary to the Admiralty, the Lord Clarence Paget, and the audacious buni'ombe with which he indoctrinated the Mayor of Sandwich at a dinner in that burgh, eaten not long since. In that speech the noble Secretary assured the Mayor that his digestion need not be impaired by anything he might hear, for that the armament of our gallant ships was never in a more cilicient and satisfactory state. Bearing this speech in mind, now let us read a few words from the Special Correspondent of the Times, in a second letter on the same subject. dated Richmond, December 21, published here on the 23rd of January. Thus he writes :

Again I feel tempted to raise a warning voice about the disparity of the armament on board of the English and American navius. It is impossible for those who have been many months absent from England to be well informed as to the actual state of public opinion at the present moment upon this vital subject. But, judging from the officers of her Majesty’s navy who have at rare intervals brought vessels of war into Confederate ports, it appears still to be held that the GS-pounder or 8-inch smooth bore is England's best weapon of advance against iron-clad vessels. The experience gained at Charleston enables me confidently tooffirm that as well might you pelt one of Me Yankee Monitors or the Ironridu with pea: a: earpect them to be in any way damaged by 8-inch shot. Another disagreeable question forces itself upon an Englishman's attention when he is cognizant of the terrific broadside thrown by the eight ll-inoh guns of the Ironsides —one of the most formidable broadsides, in the opinion of the de' fenders of Charleston, which has ever been thrown by any vessel. Have we any ship in existence which could successfully resist such a broadside, and respond to it with anything like commensurate weight and vigour? I should be faiihless to in duty if I did not mention that it is the universal opinion of all the English officers serving in the Confederate army with whom I have conversed that England is behind America in the weight and power of the guns sent by both nations to sea.

Your readers will not misunderstand the Times' Special Correspondenfi and suppose that he refers to the pea-shooting qualities of a guns of 8~inch calibre; :on the contrary, he refers entirely to the glorious family of Brown Bess, of 8-inch calibre, in which the British Lion at resent rejoices, and which have the power to burn with safety a weak cartridge containing only sixteen pounds of powder. Such is the Britishers’ best naval gun at present, and such is the peashooting implement which Secretary my Lord Clarence Puget assures the Mayor of Sandwich is the perfection of naval armament.

It is curious and instructive to read the naval columns of our daily papers, and to observe how our old 68-pounders and Armstrong's useless 110-pounders continue to be placed on board our ships as they are commissioned and hoist their pendants ; just as if each ship so armed were not a disgrace to our gallant navy, and only useful as a reminder that for the last seventy years the proceedings of our Boards of Admiralty have been more resembling the acts of lunatics than those of men ssessed of ordinary intelligence.

What is the or Office doin P What has become of Armstrong and his Dear Bill? IVhat means this painful silence in Printing-house square? Is there something rotten in the state of Denmark ? You know it will be necessary to do something to make a splash and delude the public just as Parliament meets, or members will be hunting up Lord Hartington and taxing his powers how not to tell it. The T imes' Special Correspondent speaks of the Federal Ironsides and her tremendous battery of guns. There is, I suspect, a typographicl error in the statement that they are 11-inch guns. The ll-inch Dahlgren is the gun commonly used in the American Navy, but the Ironsides carries a battery of 13inch guns, and the limes" correspondent is quite right in designating it as the heaviest battery ever used in naval warfare.

Well, what are our able engineers about in these threatening times? The Mersey Company, which produced the monster Horsfall gun, and handsomely presented it to the Government, have had the cold shoulder ; they are constructm8 sending them abroad extensively. They are steel guns, 1.2-pounder breech-loaders, thought by foreigners the best breech-loaders extant, stronger and more simple than Armstrong's guns. Sir W. Armstrong boasts in the Times that he does not make- for foreign nations. Quite true. If his patriotism would allow him to seek a foreign market, he would have some difficulty to find one. What is Blaker about? Making monster guns for Russia, with never a “ZDear .Bill " among them. What is Whitworth at? Attempting to squeeze his guns in forafair trial against Armstrong. "The Captain is abold man." Where is our host of engineering talent? Ignored by Government, and nowhere. Csvnro.

[graphic][merged small]
[merged small][graphic]

" December 11, 1663.

uns made on the principle of Captain Forbers, andl

both what Canon M‘Neile himself alleged and what the Bishop of Oxford re resented him as alleging.

My ob'ect, in making any comment on the speeches of Canon ‘Neile, is not to defend the Bishop of Oxford, but to in uire :

1. ow far certain opinions, implied or expressed in the speeches of Canon M‘Neile, are countenanccd by the Articles of the Church of England.

2. What effect the enunciation of such views as those of Canon M‘Neile is likely to have on the Roman Catholics of Ireland.

Canon M‘Neile is reported in the daily papers to have spoken at the Church Congress as follows :

“ But, on the contrary, if the object of the Church were to Christianisc the country-a country which, without it, must remain iinChristianised, or anti-Christian—tlien to say that it did not succeed was a good reason for strengthening its hands, and no reason at all for withdrawing support. Was this the object of it or not? ' ' ' * " " " If Remanism were saving Christianity, then withdraw the Church of Ireland; but if Romanism were auti~Christian, then sustain it."

The Bishop of Oxford then remarked:

“ I for one dare not hold, and, being obliged to speak, most solemnly enter my protest against the statement—and we have no right whatever to say it—rhat no member of the Church of Rome is in a condition to be saved."

In consequence of Canon M‘Neile affirming, “ I never said so,” &c., the Bishop of Oxford rejoined,

“ I understood him to say that we could not maintain the Church in Ireland unless we distinctly stated that there was not saving truth in the l’opish community. That I distinctly understood him. I rejoice, however, to bear that he did not mean what those words convey to my mind.”

From the above it is clear that the Bishop of Oxford conceived himself 'ustified in understanding the language of Canon M‘Neile s first a eech to imply, that we could not maintain the Church in Ireland unless we distinctly stated that Romanism is not saving Christianitv, and that no bond fide Roman Catholic can be saved. Such a view, I think, every attentive reader will presume his Lordship intended to express. It now remains to be seen whether such a view is confirmed by Canon M‘Neile's explanatory rejoinder, which runs as follows :

“I am, therefore, committed to this statement, that in my opinion Romanism is not saving Christianity. But I am not committed. to the statement, that no individual member of the Rornisli Church can be saved. I believe there are members belonging to the Roman Catholic Church who are not Roman Catholics, and do not worship the cross, and do not say prayers to the Virgin, which I believe is as rank idolatry as," &O

Wherein he pledges himself to the statement, “ that Romanism is not saving Christianity ;” and further, his strange language about Roman Catholics who are not Roman Catholics, seems to imply his belief, if it implies anything, that no bond fidc Roman Catholic can be saved, which is also, I conceive, a sentiment the Bish0p of Oxford thought to be fairly doducible from his first speech.

In his oration at a meeting of the above-mentioned Society, the Canon alludes to the Bishop of Oxford in thegfollowing manner:

“New, in saying all this I must not be misrepresented as I want the Manchester Congress by the Lord Bishop of Oxford. I was there misrepresented as having said that no Roman Catholic could be saved. I never said so. ' ' ’ " ’ The question is not about individuals at all ; and the Lord Bishop of Oxford know that as well as I did—I take the liberty of telling him so new. ' ' ' ' ' The question is—ls Romanism saving Christianity? A very difi'ereat question from—Can a Romanist be saved ?"

It is manifest that lthe question—Is Romanism saving Christianity? may be a different one from the puerile query— Can a Romanist who is not a Romanist be saved? But if the question—Can a Remanist be saved? refer to a bond fide Roman Catholic, it is quite clear that it is involved in the former question. And this, I apprehend, will be evident on ascertaining the significance of the interrogation—Is Romanism saving Christianity? This is clearly equivalent to the following: Can the creed of Roman Catholicism secure the salvation of those believing in it and endeavouring to live according to it? Hence it appears that this is a personal question, and (lees refer to individuals ; and, in answering it in the negative, Canon M'Neile (notwithstanding his assertion to the contrary) does judge his fellow-servants—viz., all genuine Roman Catholics.

Having ascertained from the Canon's ovrn words, and b plain inference from them, to what statements he is pledge ,

shall now inquire, as at first proposed, whether those statements are countenanced by the Articles of our Church.

As the severe censuros on certain doctrines and practices of the Romish Church contained. in the Articles of our Church are familiar to every one, I need not enumerate them. But I venture to afiirm that no approach is made in them to an explicit statement that ‘Romanism is not saving Chris~ y tianity.’ or that ‘ no genuine Roman Catholic can be saved.‘ lIndecd, such presumptuous statements could only be made by a Church claiming infallibility; and such a claim the Church, in her twenty-first Article, emphatically disavowc lfor herself, even when assembled in General Council; and ‘such claim to infallibility she surely does not make in the person of Canon M‘Neile. On so grave a question as the one under discussion, the Church has pronounced no authoritative decision; and what she has wisely left in doubt, the [Bishop of Oxford, although seeing ample reason to prefer the creed of his own Church, is content, with like wisdom, to {leave in doubt. A striking passage, corroborative of this iview of the question, occurs in the Essays of the late Arch~ ‘bishop of Dublin, Dr Whately, whom no one, I conceive, ever thought of charging with any leaning to Romanism. The passage runs as follows:

“ To decide what persons can or cannot be members of the same religious communin on earth, uniting in public worship and other obscrvauces, is no more than it is ssible, and allowable, and requisite for uninspired man to underta e; and this is implied, and is all that is necessarily implied, in the ordinances and forrnnlaries of every

[merged small][graphic][merged small]

Church ; but to decide who are or are not partakers of the benefits of '


I presume to think it has been shown that the doctrine_of Canon M‘Neile in regard to Romanism and Roman Catholics is in no way sflirmed or countenanccd by the Articles of the Church of England. Further, it has been evidenced that two eminent dignitaries of the Church (although of opposite schools) have interpreted her declarations relating to Romanism conformably to such showing. This fact alone might restrain any Anglican, endowed with ordinary modesty, from indulging in such perilous assertions as those of Canon M‘Neile; indeed, does not the Canon perceive, in making them, how nearly he a preaches Romanism in its great characteristic, without which it would cease to be—viz., its Po ry? ' . _

aving disposed of the first branch of the inquiry, I will now proceed to the second—viz. :

\Vhat effect the enunciation of such views as those propounded by Canon M‘Neile is likely to have on the Roman Catholics of Ireland.

In order to do this efficiently, I find it necessary to cite the following extraordinary passages from the speech delivered by Canon M‘Ncile before the Missionary Society. In speaking of the Church in Ireland, the Rev. Canon observes:

“ It is very irritating, especially to educated men, Catholic gentlemen, members of Parliament, professional men, solicitors, barristers, physicians, surgeons, and artists. Many of these are men of talent and industry, and consequently men of influence, and they feel keenly the position they are placed in by men of the Established Church, not merely as a matter of creed, but as a matter of caste. They feel that the Established Church gives a higher social status to ill minis tors and its members than they can attain to, and this is a matter of deep and serious vexation to such gentlemen. ' " ’ " ' ‘ They are mortified, and naturally mortified, at the aristocracy of gentility—ifl must any it—the aristocracy of gentility which the Church maintains in the country; and they feel, I know, as a matter of fact they feel at this moment, there is a species of society, a higher grade of society, in Dublin and other places in Ireland, connected with the members of the Established Church, into which they cannot force themselves, notwithstanding their education and intelligence."

If the persons here referrodito be what Canon M‘Neile alleges them to bc—viz., gentlemen, they can feel no irritation from the “ matter of caste;" for I am quite unaware that gentlemen are in the habit of forcing themselves into any society where they feel they are unwelcome, even though it be a “ higher grade of society," on “aristocracy of gentility." Equally unaware am I that Anglican gentlemen are in the habit of eXcluding from their society any other gentlemen whatever, whether they be members of the Roman Catholic or any other Church. Indeed, that must be a strange society which claims to be irritating mainly to gentlemen, men of talent and industry, &c., and, as a consequence, chiefly agreeable to the un~ entlemanly, the unintelligent, and the idle. Does Canon ‘Neile sup can that he serves his Church by representing the society s e maintains in Ireland as chiefly acceptable to such a class of persons? The Irish Priests, I fear, will not fail to make it practically evident that they entertain a very different Opinion.

Little as may be the irritation caused b the ‘aristocracy 0f gentility,’ the indiscreet and unauthorised language used by Canon M‘Neile against the Irish in regard to their religion, cannot fail to reduce deep and even justifiable irritation against the Church. For how, indeed, can ltomanists be expected to inter ret such epithets as "un-Christian" and “anti-Christian,’ except as impl ing that they are worse than heathcns? How can they fliil to consider themselves stigmatised as reprobstes, if, being foolish enough to believe that the doctrine of Canon M'Neile is the doctrine of the Church, they are told the English Church positively denounces the creed they wilfully hold and maintain as an absolutely unsaving one. I therefore affirm that the language of the Rev. Canon has an undoubted tendency to inflict the most serious injury on the Church of England by representing her, in her relation to other Churches, in a totally false light ; it being her function, if I mistake not, to walk independently, but withal peacefully, amongst the Churches of the earth. Least of all can she afford at the present hour to indulge in evil~speaking against any other Church.

In conclusion, I may remark that the public enunciation of such views as those of the Rev. Canon is important, not merely as regards the Roman Catholics in Ireland and elsewhere, but as indicating a spirit which is certain to manifest itself by intolerant utterances not only against Roman Catholics. but against members of our own Church: a spirit; dominant for the hour amongst a certain class of the clergy who, usurping the authority of the Church, exhibitapropensity to erect themselves into a. tribunal of orthodoxy, and to publicly stigmatise all, whether clergy or laity, who hap en to differ from them on unsettled points of doctrine. Suc a propensit , which threatens to overturn all order and discipline int e Church, is plainly revealed by the assertion of Canon M‘Neile, when, prefucing his judgments with the formula “I judge no man," he asserts “ there are Anglicans in name Who are Romanists at heart." B what authority, by what right, I ask, does Canon M‘Neilh venture to call in question the reality of their Anglicanism who elect to be called Anglicans? And whence does he know the thoughts of their hearts? Does he who judges no man presume, in respect of such knowledge, to lace himself on a level with Him who “know all men, An needed not that any should testify of man; for He knew what was in man” ? For only such is Being as he, of whom this is recorded, would be justified in using the language of Canon M‘Neilc.

However much Canon M‘Neile may fall short of that charity, which “ Hopeth all things of all men,” one might yet expect to find him endowed with a sufficiency of restraining foresight to prevent his making reckless charges against his brother Ang icans. For does he not perceive how readily, if not justifiably under the circumstances, the accused Anglicans might retort that ‘there are Catholics in name who are sectarisns at hearti” How aptly might they, for instance, represent his statements in respect of them as substantially equivalent to the sectarian utterance, ‘ I know that their sontiments are not in sentiments; and whatever is not of M‘Neile is not Ang ican.’

As language similar to that of Canon M‘Neile is of daily and increasing occurrence in the Church, and passes without rebuke or protest from those occupying the highest posts in it; a layman may well be pardoned for venturing to arraign a spirit which threatens to endanger the very existence of a Church its adherents are prone to believe the most liberal and comprehensive in the world—I am, &c., CATHOLIOUS.

[graphic][merged small]

Sir,-—It is a consoling reflection that the inevitable result of the abuse of power is, sooner or later, a reaction against the wrong; and the res ite of Townleyas effected by the opinion of Dr Forbes inslow in favour of that mur erer’s insanity may very well be adduced as an illustration of an abuse of power that will lead to good results in the amendment of our criminal law proceeding. Among such amendments,—perhaps it might be placed first in importance,-may be stated the restriction of medical evidence to the proof of facts, not of conclusions, in matters of insanity. In view of this result I would now desire to lace this question before the public—What is the true vs no of medical evidence in cases of insanity actual or presumed?

In law and public opinion medical authority is held to determine the sanit or insanity of aman, to the exclusion or supererogation 0 all other evidence. I express myself thus broadly, because though other evidence may be technicall required and taken, yet experience proves that medical evi ence is reall the determining roof. And the cause of such evidence being so privilege is obvious. Without merging into metaphysics, it may be stated that it is held by all authorities that brain and mind hold the like relation to each other as, for instance, nerve to sensation, muscle to motion, lungs to respiration, Asc. ; that, in short, brain is the organ and mind its function. And, consequently, as medical opinion is held conclusive as to the derangement of the commonly called bodily organs, so should it be deemed equally valid when that other organ, the brain, is in question. But there is a fallacy in all this reasoning, as will appear if we examine the process by which the conclusion is arrived at. A sick person consults his physician, and details the symptoms of his complaint; the physician infers these symptoms to their cause in the disordered condition of some one or other of the bodily organs, and prescribes such remedies as by altering that organic condition will remove the functional derangement—the disease. Now what have we here P Clearly these things—information of the deranged functions (the symptoms) given by the patient to the physician, and the consequent couclusion by the latter as to that condition which gives rise to these symptoms. But in the case of actual or feigned insanity we not onl allow the physician to determine the conclusion—the seat 0 the disease and its treatment— but to determine the presence or absence of those symptoms which in the former case he had first himself to obtain from the patient or others before he could enter upon his proper duty. This is surely wrong. Why shoulda difl'erent rocedure be adopted in the one case from what is held a solutely necessary in the other? Let it be granted that a medical “expert” has had extensive experience in cases of insanity, what does this. amount to P Only to this, quoad his professional knowledge—that certain derangemcuts of the

rain-function existing, his knowledge teaches him the use of the best remedies to remove the diseased condition of the organ itself, just as when, he having acquired from other sources the information that, we will suppose, certain s mptoms affecting the respiration exist, his special knowle go is necessary to determine the requisite remedies. Every intelligent observer, when his attention has been given to the point, can say as surely as the most skilful physician whether certain s mptoms are or not those of health simply by com

aring t em with what he knows are the signs of health in

imself or others. The organic cause lies beyond his knowledge. but as to the external signs by which this internal con~ dition is Ievidenced, he is equally competent with his ph sician to determine the fact of their existence or not. ow all men of even moderate powers of observation know what are healthy mental henomcna just as well as the most rofound psychologist oes, and that simpl by referring t em to the standard of the healthy mind in t emselves or others. They may not be able to analyse them into their primary elements, or to deduce their logical consequences, just as the formerly instanced patient could not analyse his symptoms or deduce all the other derangements that would follow them ; but as to the plain external facts presented to’them-é-the words and deeds of the mind, under examination—they surely are competent to say whether such words and deeds are the sym toms of a diseased or healthy brain. But I go further, an say that they are even more competent in the one case than the physician is in the other, because in the one every man has within his own consciousness the healthy standard of com arison, whereas in the other the physician has nothing of a 1 this unless he has had every disease in his own person, with a perfect recollection of all the leading symptoms, which is an absurd supposition. Hence it can be explicitly inferred that as to thefaot of insanity every intelligent man may be an expert, not as to the treatment of the disease but as to the existence of it. What is it that makes a man an expert in cases of, say mechanical engineering? is it not a thorough knowledge of the o erations of the machine in its, so to speak, healthy con itionP Then is not every intelligent man well acquainted with the healthy operation of his own mind, and therefore a judge of the healthy operations of the mind of others,-his own mind having the li e healthy operation as that of others, just as his own nerve, muscle, and lungs are alike in their healthyo eration to those of other men. Now how do we judge of t e sanity or insanity of a man? Is it not by a like comparison? In the case of common diseases the patient (or another) declares the actual condition of his bodily organs by a sufficiently faithful description of the symptoms ; in the instance of the insane man he does the same as to his mind by his words and deeds. In the former case no professional skill is necessary to say that some part of the body is diseased ; in the latter the like facility exists for determining that—some other part of the man—the mind is disordered.

It will have been seen that I have specially reserved the treatment of diseased brain to the physician, and here his domain is unquestionable. But I must insist and, if the foregoing reasoning be correct, may justly insist that the physician be ke t to his own proper duty and province—not to determine t e fact of disordered mind, but purely the treatment of diseased brain.

I shall not transgress further on your s ace by plainly showing how the preceding remarks apply to ownley s case. He may or may not be insane. I believe, with the Lunacy

[merged small][graphic][graphic][merged small][merged small][graphic]

Never by cod or dogfish, seagull or cormorant, has the herring been half so eagerly pursued for greedy ends as here it has been hunted down by Mr Mitchell, on its own behalf. With zeal and thoroughness of purpose, that it does one good to think of in these days of hasty thought and reckless writing, Mr Mitchell, during five-and-twenty years, has followed the fish which it delights him to honour through all the ngesin which it has been cared for by man, and through all the seas that it is known to frequent. He has read every antiquarian work that seemed likely to illustrate its history as an important element of man's food and a no less important encourager of seafaring and commerce. He has visited and re-visited every large fishing station in England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Holland, and Norway, and has been careful to get accurate reports from America and other distant parts; so as to give a full and true account of the herring’s life in the sea, and of the different ways in which it is caught and prepared for eating. The result is as seasouable and well-seasoned a dish as the greatest gourmand among books could wish to have before him.

Herring-fishing has for many centuries been a favourite pursuit of Englishmen. It is, indeed, almost the oldest constituent of British commerce. Solinus, writing about the year 240, says of the people of the Hebrides, “ They “ do not know the cultivation of grain, but live much on “ fish and milk,” and the most ancient relics of our island are boats or canoes, evidently used by its primitive inhabitants for fishing purposes. Herrings were caught at Yarmouth very soon after, if not also long before, the coming of the Anglo-Saxons, and where its oldest church was built, “a godly man was placed in it, to "pray for the health and success of the fishermen that “came to fish at Yarmouth in the herring season.” Domesday book shows that hearings and other fish formed the staple of most coast towns in the eleventh century, although the trade with foreign countries was at that time less extensive in England than in Denmark. “The "Danes," says a contemporary traveller, “formerly clad “like simple seamen, are now clad in scarlet and purple, “and every nation carries them abundance of gold and “ silver in exchange for their herrings.", According to the old romance, it was Grim, a Danish fisherman, who, coming to our island long before this period, founded the town of Grimsby; and Grimsby was a favourite resort of the herring fishermen and merchants of the middle ages. The Norfolk fisheries, however, were more prosperous than those of the north. In 1188 Yarmouth was made a burgh, on condition of rendering annually to the Crown ten thousand herrings; in 1199 the neighbouring town of Dunwich, its formidable rival until it was washed away by the sea, received a charter, to be paid for with a quarter as many herrings, besides a sum of money; and in 1286 Edward the First granted a charter for land at Carleton, in Norfolk, “by the service of twenty-four pasties of “fresh hes-rings at their first coming in.” For centuries there was a continual strife between the men of Yarmouth and the men of the Cinque Ports, touching the right of fishing for herrings and selling them when caught, the gain being steadily with the people of Norfolk. One of the few omissions that we hava noticed in Mr Mitchell's volume concerns the famous William of Trumpington, Abbot of St Albans, but not hindered from mercantile success by his clerical calling, who bought an immense house at Yarmouth, and in it employed numerous agents to collect and cure herrings for sale, “ to the incstimnble “ advantage as well as honour of his Abbey."

Very numerous were the laws passed during these centuries about the privileges of catching and trading in herrings. Quite as many were passed in later times, although the increasing importance of other and yet more important branches of commerce has thrown them somewhat into the shade. In one of William and Mary’s ordinances, for example, their majestics, "considering how much “the curing and packing of herring and salmon fish, “ to be exported forth of this kingdom, contribute “to the advancement of trade and the general good “of the nation," give minute directions as to the whole management of the business. Encouraged by good laws, and not deterred by bad ones, the herring trade of England and Scotland increased in value every year. Why it failed in Ireland is explained by Dean Swift in a characteristic letter printed by Mr Mitchell, written to one who wished to promote it there in 1734; “A gentleman “of this kingdom," says the Dean, “ about three years "ago, joined with some others in afishery here in the “northern parts. They advanced only 2001. by way of “ trial. They got men from Orkney to cure the fish, who “understood it well. But the vulgar folks of Ireland are. “ so lazy and knavish, that it turned to no account, nor


“ would anybody join with them, and so the matter fell, “ and they lost tWo-thirds of their money. Oppressed “ beggars are always knaves, and I believe there are “hardly any other among us; they had rather gain a “ shilling by knavery than five pounds by honest dealing. " They lost 5001. a year for ever in the time of the plague f‘at Marseilles, when the Spaniards would have bought " all their linen from Ireland, but the merchants and the “ weavers sent over such abominable linen that it was all “returned back, and sold for a fourth part of its value. “ This is our condition, which you may please to pity, but ~ “ never can mend." '

As to the present state of herring fisheries Mr Mitchell gives some interesting statistics. The trade of Great

ritain has steadily risen since the beginning of the century from about 100,000 to nearly 700,000 barrels, the exports for most years bein something like one-third. In 1849, a year of remarkabe abundance, the quantity of cured herrings amounted to 1,151,979 barrels, 942,617 from the Scottish, and 209,862 from the English coast. In 1862 the total quantity was 746,518 barrels.

Mr Mitchell's history of herring fisheries fills two-thirds of his volume. In the remainder he gives a precise account of the habits and appearance, the food and the migrative habits of the herring, and a no less precise description of the different modes of fishing and curing. On all these points his volume contains much new and important information. “Many writers have stated,” he says in one part, “ and some scientific works still state, 1 “ that the herring comes from the Arctic circle, in large “ shoals of lcagucs’ extent, dividing into lesser shoals “ on coming towards the north of Scotland, one body, “ proceeding to the west coast of Scotland and to Ireland, “ and another to the east coast. Others state that,l “although the herring does not come from the Arctic " circle, they at least come from a considerable distance “ northward of Scotland. But we consider"-—and he gives good reasons for the more plausible view—“that “ the herrings inhabit the seas adjacent to the coasts, bays, “ or rivers, where they resort for the purpose of spawning; “ and that after spawning they return to the sea in the “neighbourhood, where they continue and where they “ feed until the spawning season again approaches, while “ the fry, on being vivificd, continues near the spawning “ground until it is of sufficient size.”

The Empire in India: Lellers from Madras and other
Places. By Major Evans Bell, Madras Staff Corps,
Author of "The English in India: Letters from Nag-
pore, written in 1857-68.’ Triibner and Co.

" 1 am no alarmist," says Major Bell; “ I am not alarmed. "But do not let us be content to sit'down and to fold our “ arms, and to think that to-morrow will be like to-day, and “to forgetthe storm and struggle of yesterday. It may be “ soon, or it may be a hundred years, before our quiet is “ disturbed; but events move rapidly in this nineteenth

“century; and if we follow the despot's example, we‘

“ deserve and can expect no other but the despot's fate. “ We do not deserve it yet; we are not perceptibly moving " in that direction ; but unless we steadily set our faces in ‘f the opposite direction, unless we determine to govern “ India on English principles, is there not some danger “ that we shall in a few years be driven by some an“tagonistic outburst to resort to Austrian devices and “ mere coercion?" In very plain language Major Bell denounces what he regards as the wanton faults and grievous errors that have characterised our former government of India, shows how much of their influence he finds to be still marring the good that ought to result from the improved administration, and urges the adoption of what he sets forth as a wiser and more Christian policy in the future. He anticipates, with some reason, that his views will arouse “ the very general reprobation of his countrymen in “ India; ” and it is likely that the excessive warmth of his arguments and the extreme severity of his judgments on many well-meant measures will Prevent many from seeing the force of his observations.

Of the eighteen letters here printed, or reprinted from some publication not named, nearly all were written from Madras in the spring of 1861. Two or three, penned in London at the close of 1863, serve as a supplement to the rest, and contain Major Bell's comments on the latest Indian topics. The Volume is chiefly, however, a review of the past, discussing, step by step, the way in which our vast empire has been set up. Major Bell’s severest blame is directed at Lord Dalhousie and his measures. " He was, ‘-‘ and always would have been, the best and noblest of “servants; but he was the very worst and basest of “rulers. He lowered the reputation of our Government “ by repeated breaches of our ledged faith. He raised “ many of our faithful and submissive and unobtrusive “feudatories into the conspicuous position of victims and “ martyrs, and placed them on a moral elevation far above “ us. When the paramount power avows—as Lord Dal“housie did in the name of the British Government—a “policy of consolidation, and begins absorbing the smaller “ principalities, it virtually abdicates its protecting and " federal supremacy, and assumes a hostile and destroying “ character, which can lead to nothing but alarm and in"trigue, and which will be submitted to, and tolerated, “so long as the fear of overwhelming power prevents “resistance, and no longer.” But there have, says the author, been errors in policy since Lord Dalhousie's time. Major Bell complains that if we are less eager now than heretofore for the acquisition of fresh territory, we are still at fault in our disregard of native prejudices, and he

ever so disposed—by their natural beat, by their historical traditions,
by the peculiar phase of their civilisation and manners, and even by

NO ceased“ of Stat", M People on the face of the will. were and achieves the ruin of that family, and having entered,

as governess, the house of Frederick Maxwell, Esq., Q.C.,

the tenets of the two prevailing creeds,—to accept with gladneu, if l Who has 8 Sick Wife' unmeaning daughters, a faithful cub

it were offered to them, the idea of an actual living Monarch, and to

IEgard with a loyalt amounting to devotion and reverence, the

person of that Monarc , and every member of the Royal family. But
no such idea has ever been offered to them. It seems to have been
sedulously kept out of si ht. Not only have the people been accus-
tomed to see their own rinces, and princely families, treated with
contempt, but too many cases have occurred where everything has
been done to make a native Sovereign contemptible in the eyes of
his own subjects. A long course of this ungenerous conduct has not
tended to encourage respect for Royalty in the abstract, or to create a
belief in the.ruling influence, or even in the existence of any Royal
Parsonage in Great Britain, endowed with those qualities of high
honour and magnanimity, which have been associated in all ages,
and all over the world, with the idea of a great Sovereign.

To remedy this, Major Bell would have us pay proper

honour to those of the native Princes whose fidelity is,

known, and to use them as means for guiding the mass of
the people. “ No British Government, no imaginable
“ number of British merchants, planters, missionaries, or
“teachers, can produce any appreciable impression upon
“ the hundred and fifty millions of Hindoos, so long as the
“ inevitable effect of all our direct efforts is to exasperate
“and alienate the most powerful and the most influential
“men among them. We must gain the leaders, and the
“ flock wrll follow."

new novsts.
Ella Norman; er, a Woman's Perils. By Elizabeth
A. Murray. In Three Vols. Hurst and Blackctt.

Bella Donna; or, the Cross before the Name. A Ro-
mance. By Gilbert Dyce. In Two Vols. Bentley.

These are two of the novels published in the present weck. Ella Norman is a story meant to warn gentility of either sex, especially those politest of darlings cavalry officers, with their children and their sweethearts, against the belief that they can improve fortune by emigrating to Victoria. Mrs. Murray's heroine, Ella Norman, is the daughter of a deceased cavalry ofiicer, and she goes out to be a governess in the uncivilized wilds of Victoria, with a mother who contracts the vice of women of the colony and takes to drinking. After many sorrows, and a. short re;sidence with an old schoolfcllow married to a man who 3was too much of a gentleman to be successful as a Melbourne merchant,-—-aud who, for a wonder, has not acquired his virtues in a regiment ofcavalry,—Ella proceeds .to he governess at a squatter farm in the interior, where the “mistress is a raw and penurious Gael from the Isle of lSkye, with a slit for a mouth, and the master is a rough, illiterate Scotchman, recently made member of the Upper House of Legislature, and the children have run wild. Here there is a stockman, Jock Davies, who affects roughness, but, upon first seeing him, “ ‘That man has been in the cavalry, I know by his step,’ quickly exclaimed Ella." So it proved, and he departs from Australia at the end of the story as a noble earl who has come into his inheritance. Ella has a sweetheart who had been a cavalry officer in her father’s regiment, and was supposed to be lost, but he also turns up in the back settlements of Victoria; and there are other distinguished and polite persons, here an earl’s nephew, there a duke's grandson, who see Irish convicts and persons generally of the low and vulgar orders taking the upper seats at the governor's dinner ‘table, ruling the councils of the colony, and making the money in it. For Victoria, according to Mrs Murray, is a “ tremendous dust-heap of human society,” and “there I“ can be no rapport between rich vulgarity and poor |


“ refinement.” There is an air of insulted gentility about
1 the book that is sometimes exquisitely amusing. It should
‘,be exported in large quantity to Melbourne, where it will
be read by the prosperous scum of society there said to be
|in the ascendant with applause and laughter. It is a
fclever, cross book, vulgarly genteel, with a spiteful etching
lin aquafortis of life in a colony that has not a regiment of
cavalry wherewith to save itself from scorn. There is a
sort of truth in the book that makes it interesting; many
of its sketches of the bad side of an emigrant’s experience
read like studies from life; and nothing can be more true
than its moral that, when emigration to Victoria is in
question, gentility must make burnt sacrifice of its prim-
rose kid or stay at home. Yet, with all its small fault of
excess in the expression of annoyance at vulgarity and
appreciation of red coats and titles, there are not wanting in
this book large-hearted though ts. The description of the fall
and wretchedness of the rector’s daughter, Bella Dyce, who
having been lured to the colony fell there into the lowest
pit of degradation, is followed by a stout upholding of the
claim of fallen woman on the pity and help of her sisters.
The book is in fact clever and genuine, with all its weak-
ness; a book to like as well as to laugh at, and on the
whole, not only well meant, but useful in its tendency.

Bella Donna, whose story is told by Mr Gilbert Dyce, is
Jenny Bell, a poor relation, plump and pretty, but like
“ Belladonna with false seeming fruits
Alluring to destroy."

She is a venomous little snake with all her graces. It is
her choice recreation to read in retirement prurient French
novels, with their tell-tale covers re-covered in fair white
paper, and with her legs stretched and crossed by the
fireside after the manner of gentlemen. She bears grudges;
andwheu she has been baulked, by his sister Charlotte, “ the
sensible girl," of her design to marry the weak son of
her kindly protector Joseph Franklyn, Esq., of Grey
Forest, she makes in her Letts’s diary, as saith the
second title of the book, a “ Cross before the Name ” of

[graphic][merged small]

her darling Charlotte. With smooth treachery she plots

of a little boy, and succeeds to a baronetcy; she lays her game for the succession to the rank of Lady axwell,

[while she prosecutes the revenge on her dear friend the

| sensible Charlotte, who has accepted her gage of defiance.
.Her successful cruelty has driven Charlotte's father to
l suicide; in Charlotte's eyes she is a murderess, and
, Charlotte is resolved to hunt her down. Before we have
l done with her, she has wilfully murdered Lady Maxwell,
to whom agitation of all sorts had been declared fatal, by
the stabbings of her tongue; but only when by the counter-
plottings of the sick woman and the little child true to its
outraged mother, all her plots had been blown into the air.
So far as the story goes, therefore, Miss Bell’s cleverness
failed, but she will rise to the surface again yet, says Mr
Dyce, and may have better luck next time. The story of
this plump little damsel is told, with much clever elabora-
tion of her character, by the lightest of touches. The
success of the novel depends on the success of its character
painting; there is no desire to rush through a rapid
succession of highly-wrought sensation incidents. The
prevalent form of the narrative is quietly ironical. The
tone of the book is wholesome and the writing good.

[blocks in formation]

The Edinburgh opens this month one of its most readable numbers by posting up its readers in one of the latest achievements of scientific research, the theory which explains changes of heat into mechanical action. It then reviews the seventh volume of Mr Merivale’s ‘ History of the Romans under the Empire,’ with a regret, shared by all who can appreciate the research of a sound mind, that it should be the last. Within the last two years, the ‘ Journal of the Marquis de Dangeau’ has been published in nineteen volumes, and the ‘ Memoirs of the Due de St Simon’ in twenty volumes. These works, which pair naturally together, yield matter for a pleasant dash of anecdotical gossip over the Court of Louis XIV.

Without Dangeau the Memoirs of Saint-Simon would perhaps never have existed in their complete form; without Saint-Simon the dry and frigid daily annals of Dangeau would never have been printed. Dangcau is the stock, incapable of producing palatable fruit itself, on which the most luxuriant and aromatic growth of French literature in that age was grafted. Dangeau, in his daily task of four and forty years, never rises beyond the leval of the Court Circular: he witnesses the most important events of an eventful reign without an expression of wonder or emotion: even his anecdotts are without point: he is as exact and as unmeaning as a piece of clock-work. Saint-Simon, on the contrary, painted in colours that will never die every figure and every scene, the bare mention of which suffices to his mechanical anti-type. In the slender entries of the one it is scarcely possible to trace more than a feeble pulsation of passions which might have touched the soul of even a master of the ceremonies; in the torrent of eloquence and of scorn pours forth by the other, Versailles lives again, with all its conflicts, its follies, its 'ealousies, and its power. Dangeau was a gilded insect, hovering a out the Court parterre, or enthroned upon its blossoms; Saint-Simon was a mind, intent to try the Court by the touch and standard of honour, rectitude, and truth. The farmer shared the pleasures and the honours of Louis XIV. without limit: the latter cared little for his pleasures, and never possessed his confidence; but stood behind his throne and upon his tomb to be the avenger of his faults, even to the third and fourth generation. The easy and prosperous Marquis cared not to cast a look beyond the galleries of Versailles, in which he spent his existence; his conception of immortality was an apotheosis on a ceiling. How little could he have conceived it possible that he was day by day preparing materials for one who was to speak of all he adored in the language of doom—to

and to herald by lurid and prophetic flashes the approach of that storm which the monarchy of France was not destined to survivel Dangeau, born in the King’s own year, had seen the dawn and the meridian of a gay, splendid, and victorious reign, and his idolatry of the royal Sun of France was at least sincere. When Saint-Simon came to Court, thirty-seven years younger, the shadows were already lengthening; an age of cant had succeeded to an age of vice; the gloom of religious bigotry was followed by the shame of unsuccessful war and the horror of unnatural deaths: long before he completed his task the grave had closed upon Louis and the heavens themselves were gathering over France.

There is an article on the tea and cotton growth, cultivation of indigo, the roads, the waterworks, and other points in a discussion of ‘the Progress of India.’ A liberal notice of ‘the History of the Jews,’ and ‘ Lectures on Jewish History, by the Deans of St Paul’s and Westminster,’ thus incidentally refers to Dr Smith's recently completed ‘ Dictionary of the Bible : ’

Dr Smith's list of contributors comprises the names of many of the most distinguished champions of orthodoxy. The Archbishop of York, the Dean of Canterbury, Canon Wordsworth, the authors of ‘ Aids to Faith,’ and the theological professors of many of our colleges and universities. Do these writers, speaking the language sanctioned by criticism at the present day, repudiate the opinions set forth thirty years ago by Dr Milmsn? Quite the reverse. We must confess that we are at a loss to explain the anathema which has lately been hurled against some clerical writers, accused of too great freedom of speculation, when we find that these right reverend and venerable persons are associated with many of the most liberal commentators ot' the present day in the propagation of opinions at least equally remote from the standard of implicit belief and rigorous orthodoxy. To quote but one or two examples. In the article on the ‘ Pentateuch ' We find the theory of Dr Astruc, as to the double origin of'the Book of Genesis, carefully described and apparently adoptedas irrefragable ; and if we turn to the article on ‘Noah,’ we meet with concessions sufficient, we should imagine, to satisfy Sir Charles Lyell. It is distinctly laid down on scientific grounds that the Deluge was not, and could not be, universal; that the animals then existing on the earth were not, and could not be, collected in the Ark, nor fed there, if they had been so collected; that the description of the Deluge itself “is framed with a kind of poetic breath," and the description of the Ark surrounded by insurmountable difficulties. It may be so, and from our point of view we venture to say that the


consign himself and all his silken fellows to the pillury of history,“

[graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic]
« AnteriorContinuar »