cise status of the Radical as we all know him, and as many of us love and respect him. If a gentleman should present himself to Professor W. D. Whitney with his cravat off and his hair streaming in the wind, and tell him that he was utterly disgusted with the received theories about the origin and structure of language, that nothing good had ever come of them, and that he was going to war against them perpetually till he had overturned them and established new ones, and he were to confess on examination that he had never studied language, that he knew nothing of any tongue but his own, and did not understand the grammar of that, and that he had the merest smattering of ethno logy, the Professor would certainly think he was either a very impudent or crazy person, and would waste but little time on him. Or if another was to visit Professor Peirce, and denounce astronomy as now taught, and vow never to rest till he had worked out a new and very superior solar system of his own, and were then to acknowledge that he was totally ignorant of mathematics and chemistry, or of the history of astronomy, and meant to remain so, the Professor would in like manner drive him off as a bore or fool. But a very large proportion of the Radicals of the day are really conducting themselves with absurdity almost as great over a subject even more recondite than language or astronomy. There is nothing deeper hidden than the springs of human action, and yet all our legislation and social arrangements have to be based on the imperfect glimpses we have got of them here and there through many ages. The road before the reformer of to-day is, in fact, plainer than ever it was. His one duty is to find out things. His father was occupied in assailing monstrous and palpable evils, and getting the government into the hands of the many; the son has no such duty. He has no abuse of any magnitude to attack which is maintained by the few for their own comfort. His work is to adjust the relations of the individuals of the great crowd to each other, so that they may be enabled to lead a quiet, and comfortable, and free life. There is no need, therefore, of his hiring himself out to a "cause," or taking service under a banner, or calling himself either a Preserver or an Uprooter. He will preserve or uproot just as seems best, and without fancying that there is any more merit in one kind of work than in the other, or that it is a peculiarly noble thing to keep continually putting down plants and sowing seeds which he has no reasonable ground for believing to be suited either to the climate or soil. He will not, in order to give the laborer a better chance in life, spend his days howling against capitalist greed; nor, in order to elevate women in the social sphere, devote himself to denouncing men and marriage; nor, by way of promoting municipal independence, apologize for the burning of cities.

If it would not be travelling out of our domain, we should venture to suggest an application of what we are here saying to our esteemed and active friend, the Religious Radical, who just now hardly ever passes a night in his bed, and discovers a new object of adoration every week, and, if he can only get people to worship his god, will reciprocate the politeness by worshipping any other well-endorsed deity that is presented to him. It is apparently the opinion of this gentleman that some prodigious gain will result to mankind by having the greatest possible number of people lay before the world and work into each other's brains the greatest possible variety of odds and ends of religious ideas, and the amount of activity expended in this way by men and women whose speculations even on mean or simple subjects are of little value, and whose speculations on time, space, and eternity are absolutely worthless, is one of the most curious phenomena of the day. Now, what we would say on this point to any young man who is starting in life with the desire of either making the world better or promoting his own culture, is that, considered from the social standpoint, religion is of little or no interest or importance, except in so far as it promotes right living. Religious opinions which purify and elevate character, promote truthfulness, justice, temperance, and chastity, and brotherly kindness, or, in other words, supply springs of action, are infinitely valuable; religious opinions which do nothing more than help debating clubs to chop logic, and give people who have not learned how to think something to sharpen their wits over, and which a man may hold and proclaim daily without leaving off lying, or distorting, or slandering, or cheating, or stealing,

are things with which nobody who wants to keep his brain clear, healthy, and strong, and his moral perceptions in good working order, will have anything to say to. They are to the mind what tippling is to the body.

ENGLAND.-BROUGHAM-GROTE-THE BALLOT IN IRELAND. LONDON, June 23, 1871.

I HAVE just been reading the second volume of Lord Brougham's autobiography. Though the book is rather disappointing on the whole, it contains some letters and anecdotes curiously illustrative of the history of his time. The Brougham of the middle of this century was a very feeble and rather querulous old gentleman, with an undignified appetite for applause, and too great a reluctance to retire from the stage when his powers were failing. The amazingly strong constitution with which he like most great lawyers, was gifted, seemed to have preserved his passion for notoriety after the comparative eclipse of his intellectual faculties. Yet he was interesting as the representative of a past generation. It was pleasant to see the mainstay of the old Edinburgh Revier, the advocate of Queen Caroline, the energetic popular orator, the successful lawyer, who, as his chief rival remarked, if he had only known a little law would have known a little of everything. That was a singularly happy description. and I think that anybody who turns to Lord Brougham's writings in the hopes of learning much from them will be disposed to admit that he scarcely escaped the ordinary fate of those who aim at omniscience. His works are generally flimsy and pretentious. The present book, written in his old age, shows some singular symptoms of senility, as, for example, he transcribes a whole story of Voltaire's as written (doubtless it was translated) by himself at the age of thirteen; and he quotes a letter of George II., written to the Frederick who "was alive and is dead," as written by George III. to George IV. some sixty years later. Still, as the book is composed in great part of letters written during the first years of the century, when he was in his fuil vigor, it includes some valuable materi als. The greatest triumph of Brougham's life was the defence of Queen Caroline. His eloquence on that occasion has been often celebrated, and is noticed with pardonable pride in this book. The position of the roya family is altered since those days. It is in no danger of any such dis graceful scandals, and, at the same time, it is far from exciting the same amount of loyalty by its virtues. The monarchy in its present form could scarcely stand such an exposure. It is bound to be respectable, or penalty of ceasing to exist, except, indeed, that one sometimes wonders whether a little more originality-even if it took a direction not strict.y virtuous-might not be more popular than monotonous decency. It would be almost impertinent to speak of the merits of our present sov. ereign, for it seems like complimenting a lady in a private station for not outraging domestic proprieties. The Prince of Wales, in spite of certain scandalous stories, which have now pretty well died out, is admitted to be a very harmless, if not at all a brilliant, young man. His worst crime is that he patronizes the disgraceful sport of pigeon-shooting, which is unfortunately popular with our aristocracy, and some rather shrewd remarks have been made upon our distinguished legislators, who cease for a time from the labor of obstructing all business in Parliament to spend days in knocking over wretched birds in a garden. However frivolous and cruel the sport may be, it can hardly be considered as a heavy crime in the Prince not to be in advance of the sentiment which prevails in his class. And, on the whole, there is little enough in positive way to be said against any of the family. How long this nega tive recommendation and the conservative disposition of Englishmen may keep the monarchy in its present position it would be hard to prophesy but it may safely be said that just now the ordinary tone of mind is made up of absolute indifference and the certain stolid dislike to the risk and bother of a change. It is the state of mind of a husband who has discor ered that his wife is silly and a bore, but feels that a separation would be more trouble than it is worth.

Another veteran author has just left us. Mr. Grote died a few days ago, and his services to English literature are beyond any panegyric tha I can pronounce. His name was one which we quoted with justifiabl pride when foreigners, and especially Germans, declared that we wer unable to rival them in thoroughgoing research and intelligent criticism In other ways he was a man of mark. He was identified with the Londo University from its origin to the present stage of its history. That body was originally designed as an unsectarian counterpoise to the strictl orthodox universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It has been unable fairl

to rival them, as wanting both their old prestige and rich endowments. and now that, after a contest of many years, they have at length been freed, or nearly freed, from their subjection to the state church, the exist ence of a secular university will not be so much wanted. Still, the London University has in its way done much for education, and it has supported a number of able professors, and has enabled people of scanty means to obtain degrees and get a fair amount of instruction at a moderate rate. Almost a generation ago, Mr. Grote was conspicuous as a chief member of the school of philosophical radicals, in company with such men as Mr. Mill and Sir W. Molesworth. Their direct services to the cause of liberalism were undoubtedly great, and they have done still more in influencing the general tone of thought throughout the country. Mr. Mill is the only one left who still takes part in active politics. He differed from Mr. Grote on the particular doctrine-or, shall I call it crotchet?—with which the name of the historian is chiefly associated. It has generally been considered as a weakness of the school in question, but they were inclined to attribute an exaggerated value to mere changes of political machinery. Mr. Grote entertained expectations of the moral effect to be produced by the adoption of secret voting which to most people seem exaggerated. Perhaps he was prejudiced in favor of this plan by its classical associations. And now, by a curious coincidence, just as he has passed away from us, the Ballot Bill, so long despised and rejected, has become the chief measure of the Liberal Government for the session. The Army Bill has been mutilated and reduced to a simple measure for the abolition of purchase. Almost all the other bills introduced with so much confidence at the beginning of the session have been thrown out, and Government is bringing its whole influence to bear in favor of the Ballot Bill, in order that the session may not be described as utterly barren and wasted. The radical wing of the party will, of course, be gratified by this adoption of one of the favorite points in their programme. Most other people, I think, regard the change without any lively anticipations of a great social regeneration from its adoption. I confess that, for my own part, I am not specially enthusiastic about it, and I have very little belief that it will materially alter the balance of parties in England and Scotland. Corruption, so far as it consists in actually giving money to voters, will be a little more difficult to carry out, and a little more difficult to detect. The influence of money will, of course, not be really diminished, whether its diminution be desirable or not. Intimidation may be discour aged, and we would readily give a good deal to put a stop to such a detestable practice, though I rather doubt whether secret voting affords precisely the best means of doing it. There is, however, another result with which we are threatened by the Conservative party, the importance of which might be incalculably greater. Though few reasonable men, as I have said, expect any great change in England or Scotland, the conditions in Ireland are extremely different. The effect of the Land Law has already been to render tenants far more independent of their landlords. Grant them the protection of secret voting, and they will be more independent than ever. Already "nationalist" members have been returned in some cases, and it is said by some people that if a general election were to be held in Ireland to-morrow, nearly the whole body of members would consist of men, like Mr. Martin, pledged to insist upon repeal, and only condescending to sit in a Parliament at Westminster under protest, and with the avowed intention of bringing about a separation. Mr. Plunket, for example, a young member, with a hereditary right to eloquence, put this argument with much force last night, and undoubtedly the prospect is a serious one. If the Irish members in a body, or in anything like a body, insisted upon secession, it would certainly be a very serious matter. Mr. Plunket, who is a Conservative, declared that a general election would be dangerous at the present moment with or without the ballot, but held that the ballot would materially increase the danger. I am not qualified to pronounce any opinion on this point, nor to say whether, if the ballot enables Irishmen to make their true wishes known, they ought not to have the ballot, even if those wishes are disagreeable to us. I am content to point out a possible contingency without speculating on its further consequences.

The results of this year's census just have appeared, from which it seems that we have been increasing in the last decade more rapidly than in the preceding, whilst Ireland, though still in process of depleting, is not depleting so rapidly as of old. The most remarkable circumstance to be observed on the face of the returns is the enormous increase of the towns as compared with the country. Purely agricultural districts have fallen off in many cases, whilst such places as London, Liverpool, Manchester, and Glasgow swell with almost American rapidity. And thereby hang several morals, which I leave to your sagacity.

PARIS AND FRANCE.

PARIS, June 27, 1871.

THE war with Germany has not been without results on the interior policy of France. For the first time in her history, a real divorce has been apparent between Paris and the rest of the country. This divorce is a new feature in our history. The moral dictatorship of Paris has been accepted almost at the remotest date. It was felt at the time of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, when Paris gave the signal of the persecution of the Protestants. Henry IV. acknowledged it when he said, “Paris is well worth a mass," and renounced the Protestant faith. This dictatorship became intolerable in the stormy days of the French Revolution and of the Terror. It became a sort of tradition, I would almost say, a dogma, that a handful of bold men, addressing a mob in the name of the sovereign people, from a window of the Hôtel de Ville, could legally proclaim a new government, and that France had nothing to do but to submit quietly to the dictation of the Parisian will. The centralization of all the political power in Paris, rendered more complete by each government in succession, and more easy by the invention of the telegraph and the railways, condensed, as it were, all the will of the country in one single spot. Paris really became the brain of France, and issued orders to all the muscles. But now, alas! the brain is diseased and these new nervous centres, and reflex movements take place in the whole body, to use the jargon of the physiologists. The revolution of the 18th March is the first example of a popular movement successful in Paris and unacknowledged by the country. This time Paris has been fairly beaten it is now under martial law. I see groups of soldiers everywhere with chassepots on the shoulder, policemen with revolvers in the belt, and I cannot help remembering Milan at the time when the Austrian soldiers occupied it in the same fashion. The garden of the Tuileries is full of tents and of artillery, and hundreds of horses are led down to the Seine to take their drink. The Pantheon, like almost all the vast public edifices, has become a caserne; the regiments go by in their campaign-dress, with knapsacks and cartridge-boxes. You see everywhere the apparel of war. France has been beaten by Germany, and Paris has been beaten by France.

:

The magnitude of these events can hardly be overstated. Paris has always been the republican capital of a monarchical country. It had proclaimed again the republic on the 4th of September, without consulting the country, and all the efforts of Gambetta were directed against the nomination of 8 National Assembly. The government was entirely composed of the deputies of Paris, with the exception of General Trochu. In the name of the National Defence, the government of Bordeaux, which was, in fact, the dictatorship of a Parisian deputy, exercised through all France the most outrageous despotism-it dissolved the conseilsgénéraux, violated all the laws, suppressed provincial newspapers, tried even at the last moment to curtail the electoral rights of the citizens. How could France be reconciled to the Republic? The tree must be judged by its fruits. The fruits of the government of the 4th of September, of the Republican and Parisian government, were the invasion of a third of France, the capitulation of Paris, the treaty of Frankfort, the expenditure of four milliards of francs, the necessity of finding five milliards more for the Germans, and, finally, the Communist movement, with all its horrors and its follies. Paris, I have said, is the republican head of a monarchical country. But Paris does not know what a republic means; only a very few among the Republicans understand that the essence of a republic is the government of the majority by the law. In our days there are but two modes of establishing a government-universal suffrage or force. Universal suffrage has invariably been adverse to the republican form of government in France; and it will hardly now be reconciled with it. Montesquieu said that virtue was necessary to the republic; by which he meant that a republic cannot live if there are not many people capable of framing laws, of obeying laws, of understanding laws; and it must be acknowledged that this political culture, this general intelligence, is wanting in France. The country is led by instincts more than by ideas; but the instincts of the capital and of the country are totally at variance. The instincts of the rurals, as we now call them, are orderly, conservative, peaceful; they are, if you like, of a low order, but they are healthy; the instincts of Paris are morbid, simian, disorderly, revolutionary. Paris during the siege had really become a madhouse. There was something pestilential in the moral atmosphere. Even among the bourgeois, the rich bankers, and shopkeepers who escaped the tyranny of the Commune, there was a curious want of balance, of foresight, of sagacity. "We don't like the Commune," they used to say, "but we don't like the Assembly any

more.

better. There ought to have been a compromise." They spoke of conciliation; they had almost a secret leaning towards the adventurers who occupied the Hôtel de Ville. And why? They knew it not themselves; it was because these tyrants represented the tradition of the sovereignty of Paris, because the Assembly represented the sovereignty of the French people. Paris has been for a century a Circe, who changes the wisest and the best men into fools. Politically, it is not more enlightened than France; it obeys other instincts, other passions, but it obeys only instincts and passions. Our great necessity is the diffusion of political ideas; and first of all of this idea-that a government, whatever be its name, is made for the majority of the people, and represents the wishes of the majority. An American child understands this better than M.Thiers, who, in order to gratify his own senile ambition, has been attempting to force the Republic on an Assembly which desires to establish a constitutional monarchy-better than M. Louis Blanc, who proclaims that the Republic is above the divisions of universal suffrage-better than most of our public men, who advocate a new trial of the Republic, because in the commotions and agitations of such a trial they expect to gratify their hopes with greater ease and rapidity. We live under conditions which are utterly demoralizing; there is no truth in anything. We are nominally under a republic, but the Assembly has only accepted the Republic as a fact. It may last two years, or it may last two months We can hardly be said to have had even a parliamentary government; for at Bordeaux M. Thiers did not take his ministry in the majority of the Chamber. Is he a king? is he a president? is his cabinet responsible? He has so far thrown all the weight of his influence on the side of the minority of the House. He had been named a deputy in twenty-seven departments as an Orleanist, and it was only after the downfall of the Commune that public opinion obliged him to consent to the abrogation of the laws of exile passed in 1848 against the Orleans family. During the first part of the second siege of Paris, he hoped to terrorize the Chamber into a proclamation of a republic it did not wish to proclaim. For the last months everything has been a sham; nobody would see the plain truth, or durst express it. It is not the fault of the people; the people expressed its wishes clearly enough in electing the House; it wanted peace with Germany, and peace in France; and, in order to have peace in France, France demands a constitutional monarchy strong enough to be liberal. France has lost all faith in the Republican party, in the liberalism, in the capacity, in the honesty of its leaders. She has made up her mind, but the politicians have not; they are still vacillating, anxious, uneasy, and they show an imbecile fear of the remnants of the Commune and of the Bonapartes. But if anything can give any chance to the Bonapartes, it is the trial of the Republic. The Republic of 1848 paved the way for them; if the monarchical party of the House does not impose its will on M. Thiers and his followers, we may see again a coup d'état, which will be fatal to liberty and to parliamentary institutions.

Correspondence.

A LAST WORD FOR MR. CHENEY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NATION:

A. L.

God to the work of the ministry, in like manner, it was not for us a mere optional matter in what particular church we should exercise that ministry. Here again there was for us practically only this one church.

In entering this ministry, we willingly and gladly promised to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church. But it is well known that this promise is universally considered and taught to be a promise of conformity to substance of doctrine, discipline, and worship, and that a certain amount of latitude of interpretation and practice is allowable. Even under the more rigid form of subscription, until lately used in our mother Church of England, the same has always held true. In his recent letter on the Purchas case, the Archbishop of Canterbury says that it has not been customary upon the part of parishioners to require from their ministers a strict observance of the rubrics in every particular, neither has it been the custom of the bishops to enforce it, but much has been left to the conscience and discretion of the minister.

Recently, the form of subscription has been altered to give more relief to the conscience, and bring it into conformity with this liberal interpretation and practice. Now, in omitting the word regenerate from the office of infant baptism, we believe that Mr. Cheney acted within the bounds of this allowable latitude of interpretation and practice. Others had been accustomed to make variations in it, among whom I may instance the late Bishop Meade, of Virginia. When Mr. Cheney's practice was brought to the notice of his bishop, and the bishop required of him the promise to use in the future the omitted word, evidently Mr. Cheney could not obey his bishop contrary to his own conscience. Here let it be observed that the promise of obedience to our bishops and other chief ministers, made at our ordination, is not an unconditional one, it is a promise "to follow with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and to submit to their godly judgments." Every minister is thrown back upon his own reason and conscience in determining what are godly admonitions and godly judgments. Refusing to make a promise contrary to his conscience, Mr. Cheney was next tried, suspended, and afterwards deposed by the ecclesiastical court of his own especial diocese.

Mr. Cheney is now placed in a new dilemma. He must either leave that ministry to which he has been called of God, and in the exercise of which God has largely blessed him, and must cease his ministrations to the people over whom he is placed, or he must resist this ecclesiastical decision. For be it observed, Mr. Cheney has not the choice of uniting with some other church; for him, so far as this is concerned, there is only this one church.

And here I want to call attention to another most important deduction from our position, that the Episcopal Church is a divine organization, and that is this, that the church itself is limited in its right of legislation by the charter or constitution which it has received from its divine head; it can legislate only according to the terms of this charter. It has not the same freedom in passing laws which a mere voluntary association possesses. It should be very careful not to pass any laws which infringe upon the rights which its members and its ministers have received from our common Master. It has no right to pass laws bearing severely upon the consciences of a minority, and then say to them, "If you do not like these laws you need not join us, or you are free to leave us;" for this joining or leaving the church is not optional with its members. I want to emphasize and call especial attention to this point, which is too generally overlooked.

It is a very serious question whether the whole legislation which has brought about the result of deposing from the ministry of "the Church of God" (Bishop Whitehouse's words) an earnest and godly minister like Mr. Cheney, for the conscientious omission of a word from the Baptismal Office which in no way affects the efficacy of the rite, is not an assumption of authority which is contrary to God's Word and to the whole spirit of the Gospel. Believing it to be so, very many ministers and laymen of the Church are prepared to resist it at all hazards. We believe it to be our duty to make our first effort within the Church. We are bound to the Protestant Episcopal Church by the closest ties, by the dearest associations, by the strongest convictions. Whilst differing from many of our brethren on some points of doctrine and discipline, we ask liberty only for the practical working out of our own views, desiring that they should have equal liberty for the exercise of their views. We have no desire to be in a narrow church, representing only our own particular opinions we want our church to be a wide and comprehensive church, embracing all shades of opinion consistent with the platform of fundamental Scriptural truth. Our desire and effort are to make the Protestant

Episcopal Church such a comprehensive church, a Catholic church, in the true sense of that word. We appeal earnestly to all our brethren to make it so, and to repeal all restrictive and narrowing legislation-legisla tion which tends to reduce it to a mere human association or sect.

But if our effort and appeal are in vain; if such legislation is continued; if no relief is given to Mr. Cheney and those sympathizing with him, then there only remains for us the sad alter native you point outleaving the church. The only way in which we Episcopalians can consistently do so is by withdrawing and forming a new Episcopal Church. But this step is so serious, and fraught with such momentous consequences, that we may well pause long before we take it; and we can only do s as a last alternative, after having exhausted every possible means to avoid it, and to remain with our brethren in one united church.

Surely this position is not the position of "a brigand"; surely there is such a thing as conscientious resistance to unconstitutional and oppressive legislation, without resorting to the last alternative of revolution. So our forefathers resisted the oppressive legislation of Great Britain. So the martyrs of the church have resisted, even unto death, merely as witnesses for the truth, appealing to the tribunal of the last day for the vindication of their cause. J. P. H.

[We publish the above as presenting a fresh view of the matter, but the controversy must close here, as far as we are concerned. Our correspondent must surely see that his admission that he and his friends may yet leave the Episcopal Church and set up another of their own is an admission of the correctness of our assertion that the church is a voluntary association; and we cannot help calling his account of the nature and effect of the ordination vow a very neat reductio ad absurdum. To promise to obey "a godly" judgment, and reserve to yourself the right of the deciding when it is "godly," is surely something very like child's-play. The fact is, Mr. Cheney's position is a false one, and therefore one out of which an honorable and straightforward man, who allows of no dodging on the part of his own conscience, ought to get as fast as possible.-ED. NATION.]

Notes.

AMERICAN announcements of new books are few in number and not of particular importance. Harper Brothers are to publish with illustrations Mrs. Sarah N. Randolph's life of her great-grandfather, Thomas Jefferson ; "The Domestic Life of Thomas Jefferson: Compiled from Family Letters and Reminiscences," is the title of the work. The same house announce the third volume of the life of Brougham; a reprint of Bulwer's" King Arthur," and another reprint of the articles about Frederick the Great which have been appearing in their magazine, illustrated profusely, and written by Mr. J. S. C. Abbott, who, having been just preceded by Carlyle, may be supposed to have produced a better popular history in this case than he has in others. ——Messrs. Ivison, Phinney & Blakeman will bring out Mr. William Swinton's "Condensed School History of the United States: constructed for Definite Results in Recitation and containing the New Method of Topical Review."--Roberts Brothers announce another volume of Mr. F. C. Burnand's "Happy Thoughts," a volume which we can recommend to all who like the fun of the English comic papers, and indeed to a good many who care little for most of that sort of product. Sheldon & Co. will publish the Galaxy's last pair of serial stories, Mr. De Forrest's "Overland," namely, and Mr. Justin McCarthy's "Lady Judith."--Dodd & Mead will reprint a fairly good English work with a title said to be too big: "Synonyms Discriminated: A Complete Catalogue of Synonymous Words in the English Language."

-In our issue of the 29th of last month (Nation, No. 313, p. 446, first column, 17th line from the top), there is a mistake of the press which probably most of our readers corrected for themselves, but which we mention here. After saying that we found in the recent decision of the Supreme Court "no trace of the exploded dogma that the originally overeign states created the Government, and surrendered to it certain functions," we meant to say that "fifteen years ago Mr. Justice Nelson world probably not have used such language, but the court has moved during the last decade, and this progress has been conspicuously noticeable in some of its oldest members." The not italicized above was omitted.

he July number of the American Law Review has some comments on Mr. George Ticknor Curtis's defence of Mr. Field which will doubtless

surprise the author very much. It says, "It is one of the most amusing contributions to literature which has been made for many a long day," and it proceeds to prove its assertion in this way: Mr. Curtis claims the right to assume, for purposes of argument, the existence of a condition of affairs which every man who knows anything at all of the subject knows does not exist; and from this condition of affairs he deduces whatever he finds necessary. For instance, at the bottom of this controversy lies the charge made by General Barlow, and generally adopted by the bar, that Judge Barnard is corrupt; but, says Mr. Curtis, Judge Barnard cannot be corrupt, because, if he were, the people would not elect him, Governor Hoffman would not appoint him to the First District, and his brother judges would not sit with him on the bench. Here are three assumptions made by Mr. Curtis which have not a particle of foundation, either in the facts of this case or in Mr. Curtis's experience of politics or law; they are wholly gratuitous; but, once made, all is plain sailing afterwards. So, also, Mr. Curtis, having, as he says, no personal knowledge of Mr. James Fisk, Jr., and having no acquaintance with his merits or demerits, assumes that Mr. Fisk must be a very respectable man, and just the person to be appointed receiver of a large amount of property in an equity suit in which he is himself a party, and goes on and argues accordingly. So also, having shown that, under the Civil Code of New York, it is permissible for a judge to sign orders wherever he may be, and at any hour, Mr. Curtis thinks he need say nothing whatever in defence of Judge Barnard's meeting Mr. Field's clerk in the street at half-past ten at night, after coming down from Poughkeepsie on the summons, and going into a real-estate office of one of Fisk's friends, and signing an order there presented to him by the said clerk. The Law Review makes very merry over all this, and we admit that it is funny; but there is certainly a serious side to it. As we have already intimated, we doubt if anything more insulting to honorable and ordinarily in. telligent men has issued from the press for a good while; and the fact that a practitioner of Mr. Curtis's previous standing could have been induced to go through such a performance for a fee, is one of the most striking indications which have yet appeared of the demoralization of the legal profession in this city. We ought, in justice to him, to add that we understand he has abandoned that reference given him by Barnard, in the case of "Johnson vs. the Kansas Pacific R. R. Co." This is right-he knows as well as we do why it was improper for him to take a reference from this judge, immediately after attempting to whitewash him in a bulky pamphlet.

-The biography of the late Rev. Samuel Joseph May, who died at Syracuse on the 1st inst., has been partially though unintentionally written by himself in his book entitled "Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict "(Boston: Fields, Osgood & Co. 1870). As an author, he is perhaps most appropriately mentioned in this place; but as a clergyman and a philanthropist, overflowing with the milk of human kindness-whose very face has been called a benediction—and as a prominent figure in the great anti-slavery struggle of which he was only accidentally the chronicler, he will be much longer remembered than for his literary labor. To those who knew him intimately, he has long stood for the sweetest and purest example of the Christian character; and, the late Theodore Parker not perhaps excepted, no American clergyman has ever been the adviser, comforter, and confidant of so many whose religious views were totally at variance with his own, and who would even have felt it a peril or a sin to sit under his preaching. One may read in vain Mr. May's tract on the subject to discover in what exactly the Unitarian faith consists; but no one could meet him in person, or carry his griefs to him for sympathy and assistance, without a very just and lively sense of what constitutes Christianity. He was, in short, the beau ideal of a good pastor; and wherever his religious ministrations were performed-in Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New York-he was the centre of the warmest attachments and of the deepest and most widespread respect. Mr. May was a graduate of Harvard College, in the distinguished class of 1817. He was ordained in 1822; went first as a missionary to Brooklyn, Connecticut; was afterwards settled in Scituate, Mass. ; and in 1812 was appointed by Horace Mann the principal of the Normal School at Lexington, Mass., the first in the State or country. His last years were spent in Syracuse, where he voluntarily retired from the pulpit on attaining the age of 70. At his death he was 73 years of age. He was a very earnest Abolitionist, and was by "natural selection" one of the most efficient conductors of the "underground railway." In the so-called "Jerry rescue," at Syracuse, in October, 1851, he played a quite conspicuous part; but as an opponent of slavery and of color prejudice at the North, and as a defender of the rights of public instruction and of free speech, he will be most fitly honored by posterity for