the defiant tone adopted by Dr. Ullathorne. When he
rose to address the meeting he was greeted with "three
cheers for the Bishop of Birmingham;" and he asserted
that the only effect of the late agitation and law-making
on the subject would be, to excite the Catholics to give
their prelates their territorial designations. "With
regard to the Irish (he said), their habit had always been
merely to salute their Bishops as the Most Reverend
Dr. Murray, &c., but now an Irishman would consider
it as treason to his Church if, in speaking of his Bishop,
he did not designate him as 'The Lord Archbishop of
Dublin,' or 'The Lord Bishop of Derry.'"

A Fraud has been Practised on the Archbishop of
Canterbury, to draw from him an opinion adverse to
that expressed by the Bishop of London, that certain
pastors of foreign Protestant churches were not validly
ordained. His Grace, having received a letter from a
person subscribing himself W. Francis, and describing
himself a convert from Dissent to the Established Church,
in which he requested to be informed of the Archbishop's
sentiments on the subject, his Grace wrote a reply,
marked private, in which he said:—"I hardly imagine
that there are two bishops on the bench, or one clergyman
in fifty throughout our church, who would deny
the validity of the orders of these pastors solely on
account of their wanting the imposition of Episcopal
hands. And I am sure that you have misunderstood the
import of the letter which occasioned your addressing
me if you supposed that it implied any such sentiment
in the writer's mind." The letter to the Archbishop,
signed W. Francis, was written by William Rees
Francis Gawthorn, one of the recent converts to the
Church of Rome, who immediately made it public. The
Archbishop, seeing his private letter printed in all the
journals, sent a messenger to the writer's address, to
inquire by what means it had found its way into the
newspapers. The writer, not finding it convenient to
be at home, left at his lodging a letter for "the gentleman
from Dr. Sumner," which was signed with the
writer's real name, and contained the following
paragraphs:—"You no doubt wish to know if it was I who
addressed Dr. Sumner lately, with respect to the sentiments
of his brethren in regard to the 'foreign pastors.'
I beg to say that I did write to Dr. Sumner on that
subject, with a view to the benefit of a relative whom I
am trying to convert (for I am myself a Catholic), and
that I omitted my surname in the signature of my letter,
in case it should defeat the object I had in view, for I
thought it was possible that Dr. Sumner might have
heard my name, and might know that I was a Catholic,
which would probably have prevented his giving me the
information I desired. I have also to add further, that
all that I said in my note was strictly true, and that of
course I intended to avoid acting in any way inconsistent
with the 'private' nature of the communication. I
mean, that l should not of course feel myself at liberty
to publish it. I have much respect for Dr. Sumner
personally, though, I confess, none whatever for 'the Church
of England,' and am much obliged to him for his courteous
reply to my note. If it is thought that the course
I pursued in this matter was unjustifiable, or 'doing evil
that good may come,' I can only say that I did not
think so, nor did others who are better able to judge.
I have only shown the letter to personal friends, for
whose conversion to the Church I am most anxious."
One of the "personal friends" to whom Mr. Gawthorn
communicated the Archbishop's letter, was the Rev.
Cyril Page, incumbent of Christ Church, Westminster,
whom he desired to convert to the Church of Rome.
He informed Mr. Page that he possessed the above
letter from the Archbishop, described the purport of
that letter, and then, though it was marked "private"
—which he begged Mr. Page to "bear in mind"—
declared himself "ready to show the above letter to any
one who wishes to see it:" he told Mr. Page in addition,
"you are at liberty to make any private use of the
information I have given you, short of communicating it
to Protestant 'bishops.'" Mr. Page rejected with
scorn the offered communication. In his reply to Mr.
Gawthorn, he said:—"I presume you are the same
Mr. Gawthorn who resided for a short time in
Dartmouth street, and deserted the Church of England for
that of Rome. I presume, also, that you are the same
Mr. Gawthorn who a short time afterwards, under the
name of 'Rees,' sent a letter to the Bishop of London,
accusing the clergy of St. Margaret's, Westminster, of
altering the calendar and observing the Feast of the
Annunciation on a wrong day, and who, when detected,
declared that it was done with the object of driving some
of the accused parties to Rome. Such being the case, I
have no hesitation about the answer which I ought to
give such a letter, coming from such a person. I refuse
your offer, and I reject your confidence. I repudiate
your claim to tie me down to a 'private' use of the
information which you have unwarrantably forced upon
me. I know not upon what principle a man who insults
the Church of England and her bishops, and who, upon
his own showing, is willing to betray the confidence
reposed in him, can claim to force his confidence and
impose secrecy upon a priest of the Church which he is
endeavouring to subvert, and whose chief pastors he
calumniates. I, therefore, so far from acknowledging
any such obligations to secrecy in this matter, have
thought it my duty to send a copy of your letter to the
Archbishop of Canterbury." The result was the
publication of the whole correspondence, and the exposure of
this imposture.

Mr. Hume met a large body of his Constituents at
Montrose, on the 13th. His chief topic was the necessity
of a new and large measure of Parliamentary Reform,
including household suffrage and vote by ballot. He
was received with great applause, and a vote of
confidence in him was unanimously agreed to.

Another Defiance of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption
Act took place at Birkenhead, on Sunday, the 14th.
For some days previous, a large placard appeared on
the walls, bearing the following announcement:—"St.
Werburgh's Catholic Church, Birkenhead. The annual
sermon, in support of St. Werburgh's schools, will be
preached on Sunday, September 14. Pontifical high
mass will be celebrated at eleven o'clock, and the sermon
preached by the Lord Bishop of Shrewsbury. In the
evening, vespers will be sung at half-past six o'clock,
and the sermon preached by the Lord Bishop of Troy,
after which there will be a solemn benediction." The
result was, that on Sunday morning a large congregation
assembled at St. Werburgh's. The altar was
decorated with flowers, and there was a kind of canopy
or throne, intended for the reception of "the Lord
Bishop of Shrewsbury." The service was principally
conducted by three priests, in vestments of cloth of gold,
who appeared to act as the chaplains to the bishop. The
greatest devotion was paid to the "sacred person" of
the bishop, whose hands were repeatedly kissed during
the ceremony by the officiating priests. On leaving the
chapel many of the congregation, principally those of
the poorer class, kneeled down and eagerly caught the
garment of the "prelate," which they applied to their
lips.

At the annual dinner of the Bucks Agricultural
Society, at Aylesbury, on the 17th, Mr. D'lsraeli
delivered a long speech on the state of the landed interest.
He said that the repeal of the corn-laws arose from a
prevalent belief that the agriculturalists were deficient
in energy, enterprise, and skill; an assertion which was
wholly unfounded; that, however, he had no desire
to bring back protection unless it were universally
demanded by the country; and that the great object of
the landed interest ought to be to obtain relief from the
load of taxation which presses unduly upon the land.
His address was received with great applause.

NARRATIVE OF LAW AND CRIME.

A dreadful Agrarian Murder was committed in the
Queen's County, on the 25th of August. The victim
was Mr. Edward White, who had purchased, a short
time since, a portion of the Portarlington estate in the
neighbourhood of Abbeyleix, in which village he
resided. A dispute arose with some persons in the
locality about the right of turbary, and some summonses
to petty sessions had been issued on both sides. On the
morning of the day above-mentioned, whilst Mr. White